Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-08-2014 - 6g1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 8, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 6 -g SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance —Approval and Certification of 2014 Report DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comments from Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Ashley Moncado, 919 - 245 -2589 Schools Perdita Holtz, 919 - 245 -2578 2. Comments from Town of Chapel Hill Craig Benedict, 919 - 245 -2592 3. Town of Carrboro Resolution Under Separate Cover 4. 2014 SAPFOTAC Annual Report 5. 11x17 Copies of Student Projection Charts PURPOSE: To approve and certify the 2014 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee ( SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report. BACKGROUND: At the December 2, 2013 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Board approved the November 15, 2013 actual membership and capacity numbers for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS). Additional approvals /certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO partners MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding). At the March 18, 2014 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2014 SAPFOTAC Report. The draft report was also posted on the Orange County Planning Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report were sent to all SAPFO partners on March 19, 2014 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and inviting comments. Comments were requested for submission by April 21, 2014. Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS) administration presented the draft 2014 SAPFOTAC report to the CHCCS Board of Education at the April 10, 2014 meeting. The Board of Education did not recommend any changes to the report. However, Attachment 1 contains a memorandum from CHCCS administration summarizing their discussion which includes comments on the district's Facilities Study, Pre -K and impacts to school capacity, and student generation rates. No comments were received from OCS. The Chapel Hill Town Council received the draft 2014 SAPFOTAC Report at its April 9, 2014 meeting. The council did not recommend any changes to the report. However, Attachment 2 contains a memorandum from the Chapel Hill Planning Department summarizing the Town Council's discussion and comments. The Hillsborough Town Board received the draft SAPFOTAC Report at its April 14, 2014 meeting and offered no comments. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen received the draft SAPFOTAC Report at its April 15, 2014 meeting and approved the Resolution contained in Attachment 3. Currently, SAPFO student projections illustrate when the adopted level of service capacities are forecasted to be met and /or exceeded in anticipation of CIP planning and the construction of a new school. However, as is being identified by both school districts, a new trend is emerging to renovate and expand existing facilities to address school capacity needs in a more feasible way. As this trend continues, additional capacity resulting from school renovations and expansions will be added to the projection models in stages, once approved, versus the addition of greater capacity when a new school is constructed and completed. This process will pose some challenges to SAPFO compared to the existing process which indicates in advance when a completely new school is needed. The renovation and expansion to existing facilities may delay construction of new schools further into the future. Decisions on the timing of reconstruction funding would be indirectly linked to the SAPFO model. The exact pages of the 2014 SAPFOTAC report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and certifying are listed below. The context (i.e.- definitions and standards) of the various SAPFO elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full Report. Element Page in Certification to be made by BOCC SAPFOTAC Report Building capacity 11 through 16 Building capacity and current year with CIP changes membership for OCS and CHCCS were approved at the December 2, 2013 (Change from previous year) meeting. Student membership projection 19 Certification that the average of 5 models methodology will be used, as noted in #3 on page 19 (No Change from previous year) Student membership projections 36 and 37 . Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average only) (p. 36) • Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average (Change from previous year) only) (p. 37) Student Growth Rate 38 . Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools • Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary, (Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools Student/housing generation rate 41 . Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools • Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary, (No Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools FINANCIAL IMPACT: Based on 10 -year student growth projections, CHCCS has projected capital facility construction needs as follows: New Elementary #12 2020 -2021 New Middle School #5 2020 -2021 Expanded High School 2023 -2024 Based on 10 -year student growth projections, OCS has projected capital facility construction needs as follows: New Elementary # 8 2023 -2024 Expanded High School 2022 -2023 Section 7 of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states, "Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the Capital Improvement Plan referenced in Section 1 above." At the January SAPFOTAC meeting, members discussed the increased number of students generated in both districts and proposed multi - family projects that may continue to have an effect on student membership numbers. While this may be a short term trend caused by the current economic climate or other factors, the SAPFOTAC recommended further evaluation of the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts different types of housing (and bedroom count implication, if possible) may have on student membership rates. As a result, Orange County has entered into a contract with Tischler -Bise to study student generation rates of newer housing (that has been constructed in the past ten years) in the Orange County and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City School Districts. This study will only include student generation rates and will not include school impact fees. The cost for this study is $14,060. Existing funds from the Orange County Department of Planning and Inspections' 2013 -2014 budget will be utilized to fund the study. Neither Orange County Planning nor non - departmental budgets have added any contractual services monies for re- analysis of school impact fees. The final phase of a 4 -year school impact fee escalation concluded on January 1, 2012 (fee schedule at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /PDFs/ fees /School %20Impact %20Fees.pdf). These fees reflected an approximate 60% recuperation of actual costs to provide for `student stations' based on a 2007 -08 consultant study. The last impact fee level study (which includes the calculation of student generation rates, albeit for all housing stock, which is the legally defensible method for impact fees) was conducted in 2007 so it may be time to initiate another study to ensure up -to -date data is used for both SAPFO purposes and impact fee purposes. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve the 2014 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the summary table above. 4 Attachment 1 Date: April 17, 2014 To: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director From: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Re: SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments On April 10, 2014, administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC annual report to the Board at the regular Board of Education meeting. As requested, Board members shared their thoughts and feedback with respect to the draft report. A summary of that feedback is contained below. Facilities Study: The district has completed a comprehensive study of its older facilities' needs. Recommendations across all school levels include increased capacity as part of the needed renovations. If the recommendations are funded and completed, the need for Elementary #12 and the High School expansion could be delayed significantly beyond our 10 year planning window. The timing of these projects is critical. Comprehensive renovations take careful planning and phasing. Phasing becomes increasingly difficult as school levels reach and exceed capacity. Our ability to delay the need for new schools is dependent upon the successful completion of renovations and additions at our older schools. Pre -K: Currently SAPFO doesn't reflect the impact of having Pre -K in our schools although this has a significant capacity impact, especially at our older schools. Our district has over 250 pre- school students enrolled in our program. This equates to twenty classrooms that are utilized for this purpose located on all of our eleven elementary school campuses. The aforementioned facility study includes recommendations to centralize our Pre -K program. If completed, permanent Pre -K classrooms would be created releasing classrooms for additional K -5 students at our elementary schools. • Student Generation Rates: We have previously questioned whether the student generation rates currently in use accurately reflect the impact of new development that is occurring in our school system. The County has agreed to conduct a new study and the process is underway. We are pleased that this has been supported. The Board also voiced continued support for the SAPFO report and process. Board members expressed appreciation of the collective commitment of all the SAPFO partners. L'ncoln Center, 750 S. Merritt Mill Road - Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -2878 - (919) 967-8211 - www.chccs.k1 2.nc.us 5 The Board feels that the SAPFO process is working and it continues to be an effective planning and communication method for new school needs. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks to you, Ashley, and Perdita for leading this process. CC: D. Andrews, R. Stancil Attachment 2 tpW N 0 py�9PEI MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator Ashley Moncado, Planner II — Special Projects FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Chapel Hill Planning Director SUBJECT: SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments DATE: April 21, 2014_ L TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill, _NC 27514 -5705 phone (919) 968 -2728 fax (919) 969 -2014 www.towriofchapeRiiH.org At the request of the County, the Chapel Hill Town Council considered the draft Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO) 2014 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report on April 9, 2014. Mr. Todd - LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, described the draft Annual Report to the Town Council. The Town Council offered the following comments, summarized below: • It was suggested that national data could be helpful regarding generation rates. Questions were raised if student counts from particular complexes match the generation rates. • Comments were provided about the success of all students with-various needs. The status of Pace Academy was discussed. • Consideration of energy efficiency /savings is important with renovation projects. • The SAPFO Certificate of Adequate Schools (CAPS) process was described and the need for future schools was discussed. A question was raised about how long the CAPS are valid. And, what happens when CAPS are denied. • Questions were raised about the length of the design/construction process for new schools. • Pre -K capacity impacts was discussed. • The future of Glenwood Elementary was discussed. • It was emphasized that it is important for the schools and local government boards to continue working together especially as it relates to the process for issuance of CAPS. • It was noted that national data may help with multi- family membership numbers as it relates to rental versus ownership and associated with pricing. • The potential impact of redevelopment on schools was noted as it relates to walk -zones and redistricting. • It was noted that improvements to existing facilities could further delay future school construction. • Alternatives were mentioned such as working with DT Community College, exploring other alternative learning environments, magnets, and year -round schools. • Typical land area requirements for new schools were discussed. 7 • Continued collaboration between the City Schools and the local government boards was again noted as key. The Town Council was especially appreciative of Mr. LoFrese's presentation. Thank you for your assistance throughout the Annual Report process. Please let us know if you need additional information or have questions. TOWN OF CARRBORO A 8 NORTH CAROLINA W W W.TO WN OFCARRBORO.ORG Motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman Seils to approve the resolution below: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND COMMENTING ON THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) 2014 REPORT WHEREAS, the Town has had a longstanding interest in the success and excellence of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools; and WHEREAS, the Town has participated in the development and implementation of the schools adequate public facilities ordinance provisions since 2003; and WHEREAS, the annual technical advisory committee report has been prepared and distributed for comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Carrboro provides the following comments: 1. An independent review of the growth projections versus actuals should be completed and the results provided back to the Board. 2. The Orange County Board of Commissioners is requested to include Mebane in the agreement. This the 15th day of April, 2014. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Alderman Johnson, Mayor Lavelle, Alderman Seils, Alderman Gist, Alderman Haven - O'Donnell and Alderman Slade 'f'oum Clerk T, Catherine C. Wilson, Town Clerk for the Town of Carrboro, NC do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. 301 WEST MAIN STREET, CARRBORO, NC 27510 • (919) 942 -8541 • FAX (919) 918 -4456 • VOICE/TTY/TDD /ASCII:711 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROVIDER w Attachment 4 ORANGE COUNTY, NC SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PREPARED BY A STAFF COMMITTEE: PLANNING DIRECTORS, SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) (PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 2003) (ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN JULY 2003) Annual Report 2014 (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2013 DATA) CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY X, 2014 N1 Table of Contents 10 Page ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................... ............................... i Introduction................................................................................................................................... ............................... iv Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ................................. ............................... V Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) members ................................ ............................... I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service ........................................................................ ............................... 1 B. Building Capacity .................................................................... ............................... 2 Attachment. I. B.1 - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) ( 2012- 13 ) .............................. 5 Attachment. I.B 2. - Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012 -13) ................... 8 Attachment. I.B.3 - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) ( 2013- 14 ) .............................. 11 Attachment: I.B 4 - Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2013 -14) ................... 14 C. Membership Date ..................................................................... ............................... 17 II. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) ............................................... ............................... 18 B. Student Membership Projection Methodology ..................... ............................... 19 Attachment: II.B.1 — Student Membership Projection Descriptions ... .. 20 Attachment: II. B.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2012-13... 21 Attachment. H..B.3 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2013- 14..... .25 C. Student Membership Projections ........................................... ............................... 29 Attachment: H.C.I. —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012 -13) .................... 34 Attachment: H..C2. —Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012- 13) .......... 35 Attachment: II C. 3. —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2013 -14) ........... .. .36 Attachment. II C. 4 —Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2013 -14) .......... 37 D. Student Membership Growth Rate ................................................................... ............................... 38 Attachment: I1.D 1 —Orange County & Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Growth Rates Chart dates from 2013 -2023 based on 11/15/12 membership numbers (2012- 13) ................... ............ ............... 39 Attachment: II.D 2 — Orange County & Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates Chart dates from 2014 -2024 based on 11/15/13 membership numbers ( 2013- 14) ................... ............................... 40 E. Student / Housing Generation Rate ....................................... ............................... 41 Attachment: II. E.1 — Current Student Generation Rates (2007) ................................................. ............................... 43 III. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process A. Process 1 - Capital Investment Plan .............................................................. ............................... 44 Attachment: IIIA.1 — Process I Capital Investment Plan... . .... ..... ..... 45 B. Process 2 - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance; Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) System ...... ............................... 46 Attachment: III B.1 —Process 2 Certificate ofAdequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation .. .48 11 2014 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service .................................... ............................(No Change) .............. Pg. 1 B. Building Capacity and Membership .............................. (Change) .................... Pg. 2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Elementa 105% 105% Middle 107% 107% High 110% 110% B. Building Capacity and Membership .............................. (Change) .................... Pg. 2 C. Membership Date — November 15 ... ............................... (No Change) ..............Pg.17 II. Annual Update to SAPFO System A. Capital Investment Plan ( CIP) ........... ............................(No Change) .............. Pg. 18 B. Student Membership Projection Methodology .............(No Change) .............. Pg. 19 The average of 3, S, and 10 year history /cohort survival, linear and arithmetic projection models. C. Student Membership Projections .................................. (Change) .................... Pg. 29 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2013 -14 School Year — Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Chapel HiltlCarrboro School District Orange County School District Capacity Membership Increase from Prior Year Capacity Membership Increase from Prior Year Elementary 5829 5554 11 3694 3433 30 Middle 2840 2858 73 1 2166 1747 63 High 3875 3764 (32) 1 2439 2421 106 C. Membership Date — November 15 ... ............................... (No Change) ..............Pg.17 II. Annual Update to SAPFO System A. Capital Investment Plan ( CIP) ........... ............................(No Change) .............. Pg. 18 B. Student Membership Projection Methodology .............(No Change) .............. Pg. 19 The average of 3, S, and 10 year history /cohort survival, linear and arithmetic projection models. C. Student Membership Projections .................................. (Change) .................... Pg. 29 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2013 -14 School Year — Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (The second column for each year includes the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. An "L" indicates the projection was low compared to the actual, whereas an "H" indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.) Year Projection Made for 2013 -14 Membership Actual 2013 Membership 2008 -2009 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 Elementary 5554 5703 1 H149 5604 H50 5489 L65 5572 1 H18 5612 1 H58 Middle 2858 2960 1 H102 2848 L10 2795 L63 2796 1 L62 2862 1 H4 High 3764 3930 1 H166 3792 H28 3733 L31 3783 1 H19 3828 1 H64 1 12 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2013 -14 School Year — Orange County Schools (The second column for each year includes the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. An' L" indicates the projection was low compared to the actual, whereas an "H" indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.) Orange County School District Year Projection Made for 2013 -14 Membership Actual 2013 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 Membership 2008 -2009 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 Elementary 3433 3337 1 L96 3355 L78 3435 H2 3438 H5 3433 1 - Middle 1747 1708 L39 1751 H4 1732 L15 1716 L31 1733 L14 High 2421 2254 L167 2298 L123 2258 1 L163 2278 L143 2355 L66 D. Student Growth Rate ...................................................... (Change) .................... Pg. 39 Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over Next 10 Years Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Year Projection Made: 10 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 Elementary 91-57% 44% 1.59% 1.18% 1.44% 1.34% 1.57% 1.6% 1.31% 1.30% Middle 67% 1.94% 1.59% 1.58% 1.53% 1.84% 2.01% 1.64% 1.42% High 1 1.73% 1 1.600/. 1.27% 1 1.38% 1 1.59% 1 1.61% 1 1.43% 1 1.35% E. Student / Housing Generation Rate ... ............................(No Change) .............. Pg. 42 SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS (based on future year Student Membership Projections) CHAPEL HILLICARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School Level A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 95.3 %). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years but remain positive (average —1 .4% per year compared to 2.0% over the past 10 years). C. Capacity has increased by 585 students due to the opening of Northside Elementary School. Projections show that Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary School 412 will be needed in 2020 -21. This is one year earlier than last year's projections. Middle School Level A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 100.6 %). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the next 10 years than it has in the previous 10 years (average —1 .6% compared to an average of 0.67% over the past 10 years). C. The planned addition to Culbreth Middle School for the 2014 -15 school year is proposed to increase capacity with the addition of 104 seats. As a result, projections show that Chapel Hill /Carrboro Middle School 45 is projected to be needed in 2020 -21. This is three years later than last year's projections ii High School Level A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 97.1 %). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average -1.3% compared to 1.86% over the past 10 years). C. Expansion of Carrboro High School from the initial capacity of 800 students to the ultimate capacity of 1,200 students is projected to be needed in 2023- 24.This is three years later than last year's projections which showed a need in 2020 -21. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School Level A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 92.9 %). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected decrease but remain positive over the next 10 years (average —1.3% compared to 1.6% over the past 10 years). C. Orange County Elementary School 4 8 is projected to be needed in 2023 -24. This is a change from last year's projections which did not show a need for a new Elementary School in the 10 year projection period. 13 Middle School Level A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 80.7 %). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the next 10 years (average —1.4% compared to 0.35% over the past 10 years). C. Projections are not showing a need for an additional Middle School in the 10 year projection period. Staff continues to monitor new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane, which is not a party to the Schools APFO MOU at this time. High School Level A. Does not currently exceed 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 99.3 %). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease but remain positive over the next 10 years (average —1.4% compared to 2.4% over the past 10 years). C. Expansion of Cedar Ridge High School from the initial capacity of 500 students to the 1,500 students is projected to be needed in 2022 -23. This is a change from last year's projections which did not show a need for additional capacity in the 10 -year projection period. Changes in CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) System As a result of a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in August 2012, the local governments that are party to the SAPFO considered modification of their development regulations as they pertain to CAPS in 2013. However, at this time the local governments have not pursued revisions to existing standards contained within the CAPS system or SAPFO MOUs. iii Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance INTRODUCTION 14 The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and its Memorandum of Understanding are ordinances and agreements, respectively. Supporting documents are anticipated to be dynamic to incorporate the annual changing conditions of membership, capacity and student projections that may affect School Capital Investment Plan (CIP) timing. This formal annual report will be forthcoming to all of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners each year as new information is available. This updated information is used in the schools capital needs process of the Capital Investment Plan (Process 1) and within elements of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) spreadsheet system (Process 2). This report and any comments from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners will be considered in the first half of each year by the Board of County Commissioners at a regular or special meeting. The various elements of the report are then "certified" and formally considered in the process of the upcoming Capital Investment Plan. The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools system is updated after November 15 when data is received from the school districts with actual membership and pre - certified capacity (i.e. CIP capacity or prior "joint action" capacity changes). The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Memorandum of Understanding have dynamic aspects. The derivation of the baseline and update to the variables will continue in the future as a variety of school related issues are fine -tuned by technical and policy groups. The primary facet of this report includes the creation of mathematical projections for student memberships by school levels (Elementary, Middle and High) and by School Districts (Chapel Hill /Carrboro and Orange County). This information is found in Section 11, Subsections B, C, D, and E. In summary, this report serves as an update to the dynamic conditions of student membership and school capacity which affect future projected needs considered in Capital Investment Planning. Interested parties may make their comments known to the Board of County Commissioners prior to their review of the report and school CIP completion or ask questions of the SAPFOTAC members. 1v ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN 15 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding (Schools APFO MOU) SECTION Id RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PARTNERS Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School APFO Orange County School District School APFO i Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Carrboro Board of Aldermen Hillsborough Town Council Chapel Hill Town Council Chapel Hill / Carrboro School Board Orange County School Board v Planninp- Directors /School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee (aka SAPFOTAC) Town of Carrboro Trish McGuire, Planning Director 301 West Main Street Carrboro, NC 27510 Town of Chapel Hill J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director 405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Town of Hillsborough Margaret Hauth, Planning Director P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Orange County Planning Department Craig Benedict, Planning Director and Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner and Paul Laughton, Deputy Director of Finance and Administrative Services 131 W. Margaret Lane P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Orange County School District Gerri Martin, Superintendent 200 E. King Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services and Catherine Mau, Coordinator of Student Enrollment 750 Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 V1 16 I. BASE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A. Level of Service 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — Change can only be effectuated by amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all School APFO partners. 2. Definition — Level of Service (LOS) means the amount (level) of students that can be accommodated (serviced) at a certain school system grade group [i.e., Elementary level (K -5), Middle Level (6 -8), High School Level (9 -12)]. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District Elementary Middle High School Elementary Middle High School 105% 107% 110% 105% 107% 110% 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Chapel Hill Carrboro School District These standards are acceptable at this time. S. Recommendation — No change from above standard Analysis of Existing Conditions Orange County School District These standards are acceptable at this time. Recommendation — No change from above standard 1 17 Section I 2 3 B. Building Capacity Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee ( SAPFOTAC) will receive requested changes that are CIP related and adopted in the prior year. CIP capacity changes will be updated along with actual membership received in November of each year. Other changes will be sent to a `Joint Action Committee' of the BOCC and Board of Education, as noted in the MOU, who will make recommendations and forward changes (on the specific forms with justification) to the full Board of County Commissioners for review and action. These non -CIP changes would be updated in the upcoming November CAPS system recalibration and included in the SAPFOTAC report. Definition — "For purposes of this Memorandum, "building capacity" will be determined by reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines (consistent with CIP School Construction Guidelines /policies developed by the School District and the Board of County Commissioners) and will be determined by a joint action of the School Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. As used herein the term "building capacity" refers to permanent buildings. Mobile classrooms and other temporary student accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent buildings and may not be counted in determining the school districts building capacity." Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District The original certified capacity for each of the schools was certified by the respective Standard for: Orange County School District The original certified capacity for each of the schools was certified by the respective superintendent and incorporated in the initialization superintendent and incorporated in the of the CAPS system (Chapel Hill Carrboro School initialization of the CAPS system (Orange District April 29, 2002 - Base) Capacity changes were made each year as follows: 2003: Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary. 2004: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. County School District April 30, 2002 - Base) Capacity changes were made each year as follows: 2003: No net increase in capacity at Elementary level. No changes at Middle W 19 Section I 2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School level. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge School levels. 2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2007: An increase of 800 at the High School level with the opening of Carrboro High School. 2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary School level due to the opening of Morris Grove Elementary School and the implementation of the 1:21 class size ratio in grades K -3 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2010: An increase in capacity of 40 students at the High School level with Phoenix Academy High School becoming official high school within the district 2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2012: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2013: An increase in capacity of 585 students due to the opening of Northside Elementary School. High School. 2004: No net increase in capacity at Elementary level. No changes at Middle or High School levels. 2005: An increase in capacity of 100 at Hillsborough Elementary with the completion of renovations. 2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the Middle School level with the completion of Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of 15 at the High School level with the temporary location of Partnership Academy Alternative School. An increase of 2 at the Elementary level due to a change in the capacity calculation for each grade at each school. 2007: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2008: A decrease of 228 at the Elementary School level due to the implementation of the 1:21 class size ratio in grades K -3 and an increase of 25 at the High School level with the completion of the new Partnership Academy Alternative School. 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2010: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2012: No changes at Elementary or Middle 3 Section I 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Chapel Hill Carrboro School District The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a P School levels. A decrease of 119 at High School level as a result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction (DPI) study. 2013: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. Analysis of Existing Conditions Orange County School District The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to system to calculate capacity. Any changes year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners each year The requested 2013 -14 capacity is noted on Attachment LB.4 5. Recommendation — forms distributed to SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners each year. The requested 2013 -14 capacity is noted on Attachment LB.3 Recommendation — Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported Accept school capacities at all levels, as by CHCCS and shown in Attachment LB.4. reported by OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3. il Section I Attachment I_B.1 (page I of 3) 2012 -13 Special Note(s). 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent - certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed, by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version ofthis form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification, CapacityyiCertific Superintendent fete Membership Certification: /( -2U -t Superintendent Date 21 12.1a�bv Section I Attachment LB.1 (page 2 of 3) 2012 -13 Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Rvpresernative Technical Advisory Committee Rcpocl. These capacities will remain effective until changed by (I) the School CI'P or (2) an arnended vonnon ofthis foam that is certified by the BOW ,Justification: Capacity Certification: ,,c Superintendent [date Membership Certification: Superintendent Date 22 Section I Attachment I.B. I (page 3 of 3) 2012-13 Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent - certified capacities as part ofthc School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will rernain effective ontit changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the Bff"Cr Justification: 1. The new capacity requested for Orange High School (1,399) is used on a capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012. Capacity Certification; L Superintendent Date Membership Certiflcation: It Superintendent Date 23 Section I Attachment I.B.2 (page I of 3) 2012-13 Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15, 2002 bnse year the board accepted ilie,,;tjperintendciii-cerlified capacities as part of tht School Facilities 'I ask Force review and 2003 Planners and School Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effec6ve onail changed by (1) the School CEP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Ca city C Superintendent Date M inbershl ific ion: Superintendent Date 4 BOCC C it Date 600C Ch�' C1ate M, Section I School District: Chapel Hill -C an-boro City Schools §APFO CAPS Year: November 15, 2012 - November 14, 2013 Capacity and MemSersglp Submittal Date: November l5, 2012 Attachment I.B.2 (page 2 of 3) 2012-13 Special Not l For the Nowamer l5, 2002 base year the board accepted the stmerintendent-certified capacifies as pin of the School Fudifics Task Force reviov and 2003 Planners and School Representa6ve Technical Advisory CommMee Report These capacities vOl remoot of until changed by (l ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of lon; torto that is cerfified by the B()CC Justification: Ca city Ce ➢fi �tlow Superintendent Date 7 M tership )CFeVificat Superintendent Date 7—OCC their Date r�I< BOM Chair Date 25 I Section I Attachment I.B.2 (page 3 of 3) 2012-13 Special Note(s): S. For the November 15, 2002 base year the hoard accepted the superimendem-ettfified capactfies as part dthe Selwal Pacififies Task Force review sud 2003 Manners and Schoot Represenuifive,reehnical Advisory Committee Report ]'best capamies wjH reirtar" effective until charged by (1) the School CIP or (2) art amended versirm of this f6roi that is certified by the BOCC. Justification-. Ca city C i , 6171 Superintendent Date 6n: Superintendent Date BOCC Chai Date' A10 E30CC Chair Date �-j (�,L hL PT. 10 Section I Attachment I.B.3 (page I of 3) 2013-14 Special Note(s): I . For the Novetriber 15, 2002 base your the board accepted the sup erintendent-cerfified capacity as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 20�03 Planners and School Repre.sentative'redurical Advisory Committee Rrporl, These tapacilies will rernant effective snail changed by (l i, the Schooli CIP or 12) an aincirded version of this finrat that is certified by the BOCV, M 27 11 Section I School District: orange County Schools SAPIFOCAPSYear: November 15,2013 -November 14,2(114 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15, 2013 Attachment I.B.3 (page 2 of 3) 2013-14 Special Hotels)-. L ror this November 15, 2002 base year the board! accepted the superimardent-ceriffied capacities as pan of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Pianners and School Representative'rechnicat Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effieclive until Ountpol by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification-. 0 Men)borship C rtification: W44p= L & 4 Lis ai - Superintende D61te 13M PW 12 Section I School District: Orange County Sellools IAPFO CIP9 Year- November 15, 2013 - November 14, 2014 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date. November 15,20B Attachment I.B.3 (page 3 of 3) 2013-14 special Note(s). 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accupicd the capacities as pail of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School ReprrsorhativeTechnical Ads,hiory Committee Report. ']]test capaicifieN will remain effective until changed by ( I) the Scher] ClPor (2) an amended version of this bIrru Ghat is certified by thr BOCC 2. The 2012-21013 capacity nurnbers for orange High School (1,3,99,) is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study cornplocil by the Department of Public Instruction in Augum 2012 Justlificatiom Capagity Cortific-9tion: a We 13 Section I Attachment I.B.4 (page I of 3) 2013-14 Special Note(s): 1, For the November 13, 2002 base year the board accepted Ow superintendent - certified capacifics as part ofthe School Facilities Task Forcoroviciv aml 2003 Phroncrs and School ReprcsontafiveTeclinical Advisory Corrunifte Report. These capacities will remain effective until ehanged by ( 1) the School OP or (2) an amended version ofthis form that is certified by the B(X,'C. Justification: Capacity Certific Lion: V up nden Date Me bershl Certification-. 7,77 S6liedntendenf Date, 30 14 Section I School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15,2013 - Novenitter 14, 2014 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date. Noverriber 15, 2013 Attachment I.B.4 (page 2 of 3) 2013-14 Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15,12002 hase, year the board accepted the superintendent- certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 20Y01 Planners and School Reprewinative Technical Advisory Coniondoe Report. These capacities will remain eflective until changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is ccAified by the BOC-C. Justification: C pacity e ficatiog: TSup�ennitendent Date M b 7 ertifiatio 0)" or 'c,,n- Superintendent Date ,3,t3 3-0 31 15 Section I Scho,ol Di8 tr1cf: Chapel MI-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15, 2013 • Novernber 14, 2014 Capacity and MemSersAlp §MmMal Date: November 15, 20113 Attachment I.B.4 (page 3 of 3) 2013-14 Spectol Noto(s). I. Forithe November 15,2002 buw yea the board accepted the superintendern-terttfied capacities as pan or the SiAtow Facilities 'Nsk Force irevacvw and 2003 Platmicts and 150ioal Reprew-niative'lechnical Advisory Committee Report. Ptuse capacities will remain offectisv unad changed by l 1 the,khool CIP or (2) an arnended version ofthis farrn that is curufled by the BOCC, Justification- Pacity 0 Aficati Superintendent Date M lb7i C rtifi ationi: Superintendent Date 32 16 Section II 1 2 3 C. Membership Date Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — Change can be effectuated only by amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all School APFO partners. The Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) may advise if a change in date would improve the reporting or timeliness of the report. Definition — The date at which student membership is calculated. This date is updated each year and also serves as the basis for projections along with the history from previous years. "For purposes of this Memorandum, the term "school membership" means the actual number of students attending school as of November 15 of each year. The figure is determined by considering the number of students enrolled (i.e. registered, regardless of whether a student is no longer attending school) and making adjustments for withdrawals, dropouts, deaths, retentions and promotions. Students who are merely absent from class on the date membership is determined as a result of sickness or some other temporary reason are included in school membership figures. Each year the School District shall transmit its school membership to the parties to this agreement no later than five (5) school days after November 15. Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District November 15 of each year 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Standard for: Orange County School District November 15 of each year This will be analyzed in the future years to determine if it is an exemplary date. 4. Recommendation — No change at this time Recommendation — No change at this time 17 33 Section II II. 1 2 3 11 5 Q ANNUAL UPDATE TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE SYSTEM Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be conducted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) after review of the CIP requests from the School Districts. Action regarding CIP programs usually occurs during the BOCC budget Public Hearing process in the winter and spring of each year. The development of the CIP considers the conditions noted in the SAPFOTAC report released in the same CIP development year including LOS (level of service), capacity, and membership projections. Definition — The process and resultant program to determine school needs and provide funding for new school facilities through a variety of funding mechanisms. Standard for: Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District Not Applicable Analysis of Existing Conditions Standard for: Orange County School District Not Applicable The MOU outlines a system of implementing the SAPFO, including issuing Certificates of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) to new development if capacity is available. The Requests for CAPS will be evaluated using the most recently adopted Capital Investment Plan. A new Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior to June 30, 2014. Recommendation — Not subject to staff review W. 34 Section II B. Student Projection Methodology 2 3 11 35 Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — This section is reviewed and recommended by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) to the BOCC for change, if necessary. Definition — The method(s) by which student memberships are calculated for future years to determine total membership at each combined school level (Elementary, Middle, and High School) which take into consideration historical membership totals at a specific time (November 15) in the school year. These methods are also known as `models'. Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Standard for: Orange County School District Presently, the average of five models is being used: namely 3, 5, and 10 year history /cohort survival methods, Orange County Planning Department Linear Wave, and Tischler Linear methods. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Analysis of Existing Conditions Performance of the models is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the annual Capital Investment Plan (CIP) updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and construction. Attachment ILB.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment ILB.3 shows the performance of the models for the 2013 -14 school year from the prior year projection. 5. Recommendation — More than ten years of projection results are now available. Analysis on the accuracy of the results is showing that some models have better results in one district while others have better results in the other district. The historic growth rate is recorded by the models, but projected future growth is more difficult to accurately quantify. In all areas of the county, proposed growth is not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment. The system is updated in November of each year, becoming part of the historical projection base. This is especially pertinent in the Orange County School District which serves students living within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane which have had little historic enrollment impact. The significant proposed residential growth occurring within Mebane's jurisdiction has yet to be fully entered into the historically based projection methods. Although construction activity in this portion of the county has slowed, there are still a substantial number of approved, but undeveloped residential lots. 19 N O STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIPTION I CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS Tischler Linear (OCS & CHCCS) Mathematical formula; straight line projection y= ((c*b) *x) +b y--projected population; c= historical annual change, b =base year; x= projection years Historical growth is reflected in projected growth BYM + (BYI + 5(n)) = EYM EYM * %SL =EYMISL Baseyeargrowth reflect 10- yearaverage; OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYI =year student membership increment increase increase in BYI of 5 every other year reflects (OCS) levels; reflects progressing waves of membership o o base; EYM = ensuing year membership; n= projection year; /oSL =/o of total in housing growth; reflects buildout membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYMISL= ensuing year constraints member by school level BYM + (BYI - 15(n)) = EYM EYM * %SL = EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10 -year average; OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYI -year student membership inclement decrease in BY] of 15 until school year 2010 -2011 (CHCCS) CHCCS levels; reflects progressing waves of membership p g g p u c base; EYM = ensuing year membership; n= projection year; /oSL= /o of total reflects decreases in housing growth; reflects membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYM /SL= ensuing year buildout constraints member by school level K„ =k,,.r +(kn.r *0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n =1 advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each a =(Y G„ I g,,) 13 Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the 3 -Year Cohort (OCS & grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n =3 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level; an assumed b=g mr (a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G =given grade's graduate to the next level each year and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a =ave €age advancement rate; b= projected membership K„= k„- 1+(k„1 *0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n =1 advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each a =(Y G„ 1 g,,.r)15 Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the 5 year Cohort (OCS & grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n =5 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level; an assumed b =g .,r (a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G =given grade's graduate to the next level each year andlor historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average advancement rate; b= projected membership K„ =k,,.1 + Ilk, *0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n =1 advancement rate over the previous 10 years for each a =(Y G„ 1 9„.1) 110 Assumes a 1% annual growth rate for the 1 D year Cohort (OCS & grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n =10 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level; an assumed b =g n.1 (a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year andlor historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average advancement rate; b= projected membership n O' W Section II Attachment ILB.2 (page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2012 -13 School Year (November 15, 2012) H means High L means Low 21 37 11/15/11 Actual 2011 -12 2012 Report Projection for 2012 -13 11/15/12 Actual 2012 -13 Change between actual Nov 2011 - Nov 2012 Elementary 3348 3403 +55 Model Projection is T 3407 H4 OCP 3407 H4 10C 3455 H52 5C 3447 H44 3C 3472 H69 AVG 3438 H35 11/15/2012 Middle 1704 1684 -20 Model Projection is T 1734 H50 OCP 1759 H75 10C 1691 H7 5C 1700 H16 3CI 1697 H13 AVG 1716 H32 11/15/2012 High 2283 2315 +32 Model Projection is T 2323 H8 OCP 2289 L26 10C 2248 L67 5CI 2265 L50 3C 2264 L51 AVG 2278 L37 11/15/2012 Totals Elementary 3348 3403 Middle 1704 1684 High 2283 2315 7335 7402 +67 Model Projection is T 7464 H62 OCP 7455 H53 10C 7394 L8 5C 7412 H10 3C 7433 H31 AVGI 7432 H30 H means High L means Low 21 37 Section II Attachment ILB.2 (page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2012 -2013 School Year (November 15, 2012) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10 -YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5 -YEAR COHORT (5C) 3 -YEAR COHORT (3C) Elementary School Level Projections were all high, ranging from 4 students to 69 students high. The average of the projections was 35 students higher than actual student membership. • The membership actually increased by 55 students between November 15, 2011 and November 15, 2012. Middle School Level Projections were all high, ranging from 7 students to 75 students high. On average, the projections were 32 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 20 students between November 15, 2011 and November 15, 2012. High School Level • Projections were primarily low ranging from being low by 67 students to 8 students high. On average, the projections were 37 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 32 students between November 15, 2011 and November 15, 2012. TOTAL • The totals of all school level projections were primarily high, ranging from 8 below actual membership to 62 above actual membership. On average, the projections were high by 30 students. • The membership increased in total by 67 students, which is the sum of +55 at Elementary, -20 at Middle and +67 at High. 22 Section II 39 Attachment ILB.2 (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District School Membership 2012 -2013 School Year (November 15, 2012) H means High L means Low 23 11/15/11 Actual 2011 -12 2012 Report Projection for 2012 -13 11/15/12 Actual 2012 -13 Change between actual Nov 2011- Nov 2012 Elementary 5464 5543 +79 Model Projection is T 5563 H2O OCP 5531 L12 10C 5609 H66 5CI 5594 H51 3C 5565 H22 AVG 5572 H29 11/15/2012 Middle 2753 2785 +32 Model Projection is T 2803 H18 OCP 2796 H11 10C 2807 H22 5C 2802 L17 3CI 2774 L11 AVG 2796 1-111 11/15/2012 High 3617 3796 +82 Model Projection is T 3781 L15 OCP 3829 H33 10C 3774 L22 5CI 3765 L31 3C 3766 L30 AVG 3783 L13 Totals 11/15/2012 Elementary 5464 5543 Middle 2753 2785 High 3714 3796 11931 12124 +193 Model Projection is T 12147 H23 OCP 12156 H32 10C 12190 H66 5C 12161 H37 3C 12105 L19 AVG 12151 H27 H means High L means Low 23 Section II Attachment ILB.2 (page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District School Membership 2012 -2013 School Year (November 15, 2012) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10 -YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5 -YEAR COHORT (5C) 3 -YEAR COHORT (3C) Elementary School Level • Projections were primarily high, ranging from 12 students low to 66 students high. On average, the projections were 29 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 79 students between November 15, 2011 and November 15, 2012. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 17 students low to 22 students high. On average, the projections were 11 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 32 students between November 15, 2011 and November 15, 2012. High School Level • Projections were primarily low, ranging from 31 students low to 33 students high. On average, the projections were 13 students lower than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 82 students between November 15, 2011 and November 15, 2012. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were primarily high, ranging from 19 below actual membership to 66 student above actual membership. On average the projections were high by 27 students. • The membership increased in total by 193 students, which is the sum of +79 at Elementary, +32 at Middle, and +82 at High. 24 .$ 41 Attachment ILB.3 Section II (page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2013 -14 School Year (November 15, 2013) H means High L means Low 25 11/15/12 Actual 2012 -13 2013 Report Projection for 2013 -14 11/15/13 Actual 2013 -14 Change between actual Nov 2012 - Nov 2013 Elementary 3403 3433 +30 Model Projection is T 3460 H27 OCP 3462 H29 10C 3416 L17 5C 3415 L18 3C 3411 L22 AVG 3433 11/15/2013 Middle 1684 1747 +63 Model Projection is T 1712 L35 OCP 1709 L38 10C 1750 H3 5C 1755 H8 3CI 1740 L7 AVG 1733 L14 11/15/2013 High 2315 2421 +106 Model Projection is T 2354 L67 OCP 2356 L65 10C 2334 L87 5C 2362 L59 3CI 2367 L54 AVG 2355 L66 11/15/2013 Totals Elementary 3403 3433 Middle 1684 1747 High 2315 2421 7402 7601 +199 Model Projection is T 7526 L75 OCP 7527 L74 10C 7500 L101 5C 7532 L69 3C 7518 L83 AVG 7521 L80 H means High L means Low 25 Section II Attachment ILB.3 (page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2013 -2014 School Year (November 15, 2013) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10 -YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5 -YEAR COHORT (5C) 3 -YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 22 students low to 29 students high. The average of the projections equaled actual student membership. • The membership actually increased by 30 students between November 15, 2012 and November 15, 2013. Middle School Level Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 38 students low to 8 students high. On average, the projections were 14 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 63 students between November 15, 2012 and November 15, 2013. High School Level • Projections were all low ranging from 54 students to 87 students low. On average, the projections were 66 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 106 students between November 15, 2012 and November 15, 2013. TOTAL • The totals of all school level projections were low, ranging from 69 to 101 below actual membership. On average, the projections were low by 80 students. The membership increased in total by 199 students, which is the sum of +30 at Elementary, +63 at Middle, and +106 at High. 26 42 Section II 43 Attachment ILB.3 (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District School Membership 2013 -14 School Year (November 15, 2013) H means High L means Low 27 11/15/12 Actual 2012 -13 2013 Report Projection for 2013 -14 11/15/13 Actual 2013 -14 Change between actual Nov 2012- Nov 2013 Elementary 5543 5554 +11 Model Projection is T 5643 H89 OCP 5643 H89 10C 5603 H49 5C 5583 H29 3C 5589 H35 AVG 5612 H58 11/15/2013 Middle 2785 2858 +73 Model Projection is T 2835 L23 OCP 2840 L18 10C 2888 H30 5C 2873 H15 3CI 2872 H14 AVG 2862 H4 11/15/2013 High 3796 3764 -32 Model Projection is T 3864 H100 OCP 3890 H126 10C 3794 H30 5CI 3782 H18 3C 3810 H46 AVG 3828 H64 Totals 11/15/2013 Elementary 5543 5554 Middle 2785 2858 High 3796 3764 12,124 12,176 +52 Model Proiection is T 12,342 H166 OCP 12,373 H197 10C 12,285 H109 5C 12,238 H62 3C 12,271 H95 AVG 12,302 H126 H means High L means Low 27 M, Section II Attachment ILB.3 (page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District School Membership 2013 -2014 School Year (November 15, 2013) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10 -YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5 -YEAR COHORT (5C) 3 -YEAR COHORT (3C) Elementary School Level • Projections were all high, ranging from 29 students to 89 students high. On average, the projections were 58 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 11 students between November 15, 2012 and November 15, 2013. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 23 students low to 30 students high. On average, the projections were 4 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 73 students between November 15, 2012 and November 15, 2013. High School Level • Projections were all high, ranging from 18 students to 126 students high. On average, the projections were 64 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 32 students between November 15, 2012 and November 15, 2013. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were all high, ranging from 62 students to 197 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were high by 126 students. • The membership increased in total by 52 students, which is the sum of +11 at Elementary, +73 at Middle, and -32 at High. Section II C. Student Projections Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for annual report certifications. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition — The result of the average of the five student projection models represented by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level (Elementary, Middle, and High) for each school district (Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District and Orange County School District). 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District The 5 model average discussed in Section ILB The 5 model average discussed in Section ILB (Student Projection Methodology) (Student Projection Methodology) See Attachment ILC.4 See Attachment ILC.3 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued growth in both systems. Average projected growth rates in the next 10 years for both school systems are quite similar and follow the same growth pattern for each individual school year. Both school systems are showing a projected decrease in the increase, but are still showing positive growth at the Elementary and Middle School levels. Orange County High School is projected to experience a negative growth rate in 2014 -15 followed by positive growth rates for the remaining 10 year projections. Chapel Hill /Carrboro High School is showing varying positive growth rates over the next ten years. Year -by -year percent growth is shown on the attached table as well as the projected LOS. The projection models were updated using current (November 15, 2013) memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter. 29 45 Section II M. Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Elementary The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 at this level were overestimated by 58 students. The actual membership increased by 11 students. Over the previous ten years, this level has shown varying increases in growth rates including a decrease in actual membership in 2009 -10 which was most likely due to the shorter enrollment period caused by the institution of the new date requiring kindergarteners to be five years old. Following that dip, membership numbers are again increasing, with a significant jump (168 students) in 2011 -12. This large increase was followed by smaller increases in 2012 -13 of 79 students and in 2013 -14 of only 11 students. Growth rates during the past ten years have ranged from -1.57% to +3.92 %. Elementary School 411 (Northside Elementary) opened for the 2013 -14 school year with a capacity of 585 seats. The projections this year are showing the need for Elementary School 412 in 2020 -21, which is one year earlier than last year's projections. Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre -K programs continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre -K programs exist. Specific impacts of Pre -K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed and discussed in the coming year. Middle The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were overestimated by 4 students. The actual membership increased by 73. Over the previous ten years, growth has been quite variable and included a decrease in actual membership in 2004 -05. Following this decrease, membership and growth rates have experienced increases every school year since. Growth rates during this time period have ranged from -1.99% to +2.86 percent with most years showing a growth rate of around 1% or less. The planned addition to Culbreth Middle School for the 2014 -15 school year is proposed to increase capacity with the addition of 104 seats. As a result, projections show that Chapel Hill /Carrboro Middle School 45 is projected to be needed in 2020 -21. This is three years later than last year's projections. The proposed addition to Culbreth Middle School was approved in the 2013 -14 CIP for the 2014 -15 school year. Although capacity was projected to be available, a decision was made to fund the expansion and increase capacity. 30 Section II 47 The additional capacity resulting from the approved addition has been included in the student projections. High School The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were overestimated by 64 students. The actual membership decreased by 32 students. Over the previous ten years, change has been variable with decreases in membership in 2008 -09 and in 2009 -10. Following these decreases, membership and growth rates began increasing again within the last three years before experiencing another decrease this year (2013 -14). Growth rates during this time period have ranged from -0.84% to +5.31 %. This year's projections show that additional capacity is needed in 2023 -24, which is three years later than last year's projection. Additional High School capacity is expected to be achieved by expanding Carrboro High School from 800 students to 1,200 students, which was included in the construction plans for the high school. Additional Information for Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Currently, one Charter School, PACE Academy, serves high school students residing in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District. This school is not included as part of the SAPFO Annual Report and, as a result, its membership and capacity is not monitored or included in future projections. On February 6, 2014 PACE Academy had their charter revoked for the 2014 -2015 school year. Administrators are currently exploring the appeal process with the State Board of Education. However, CHCCS student membership may experience an increase in 2014 -15 due to the influx of students from PACE Academy becoming part of the Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District if the school's charter is not renewed through the appeals process. Orange County School District Elementary The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 at this level were equal to student membership. Actual membership increased by 30 students. Over the previous ten years, this level has experienced varying growth rates including a decrease in membership in 2005 -06. Following this decrease, membership and growth rates have experienced increases every school year since. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -0.33% to +2.80 %. In the Orange County school system, historic growth is more closely related to new residential development than in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District, which has a sizeable number of new families in 31 Section II W. older, existing housing stock. Projections this year are showing the need for Elementary School 48 in 2023 -24 when the LOS is expected to be 105.7% Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre -K programs continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre -K programs exist. Specific impacts of Pre -K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed and discussed in the coming year. Middle The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were underestimated by 14 students. The actual membership increased by 63. Over the previous ten years, growth has varied widely and includes decreases in student membership in five of the ten years. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -4.67% to +4.00 %. The district's third Middle School, Gravelly Hill Middle School, opened in October 2006. The need for an additional Middle School is not anticipated in the 10 -year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring new sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough. High School The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were underestimated by 66 students. The actual membership increased by 106. Over the previous ten years, growth varied considerably and included a decrease in membership in 2009 -10. Following this decrease, membership and growth rates have experienced increases every school year since. Growth rates during this period ranged from -1.12% to 9.01 %. In 2011 -12 student membership increased by 32 while capacity decreased by 199 at Orange County High School as a result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction (DPI) study. This year's projections show that additional capacity is needed in 2022 -23. This is different from last year's projections which did not show a need for additional capacity in the 10 -year projection period. Additional High School capacity is expected to be achieved by expanding Cedar Ridge High School from 1,000 students to 1,500 students. This addition is currently included in the five year CIP as a request for funding. At this time, a decision has not been made approving the proposed addition. Once a funding decision is made and approved, the increased capacity from the proposed addition may be included in the student projections. 32 Section II Additional lnformation for Orange County School District The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange County portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, the City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not require that CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) be issued prior to development approvals. In previous years, development activity and platting of new subdivisions increased within the Orange County portion of Mebane. However, changed economic conditions have curbed new platting and new construction in the past few years. An uptick in residential activity is likely as the country emerges from "The Great Recession." Increased coordination with the City of Mebane regarding development issues may be necessary in the future. OCS currently has capacity to serve additional growth, but it is possible that development in the Orange County portion of Mebane could quickly encumber available capacity. Following the economic downtown, there has been an increase in multi- family residential development which has added to increasing student memberships in both districts. The ongoing future demand for multi - family housing is evident throughout the county, but especially within the Town of Hillsborough which is facing the proposed development of 700 multi - family units in the near future. Staff will need to continue monitoring and evaluating the demand and growth of the multi- family market in Hillsborough and the entire county as well as its effect on student membership rates. Currently, one charter school is located in the Town of Hillsborough and serves students that reside in the Orange County School District. This school is not included as part of the SAPFO Annual Report and as a result its membership and capacity is not monitored or included in future projections. An additional charter school is being proposed in the Town of Hillsborough for the 2014 -15 school year. As a result, OCS student memberships may experience a decrease in 2014- 15 due to a loss of students enrolling in the new charter school. 5. Recommendation — Use statistics as noted in 3 above 33 C/ OCS Student Projections 11172' r.,grofnxl. O• D.115011111 , 551151..,. 4414 .., o, 0040 .•« 1or « wor .. 251 yens, s1,.+s Z.914 x1.15 mv.,e .ou.v .ow3o amain 1,612+312 9o11a3 Icy• 92 • • ., a aV.. ,:1212 '' „30m1 ]Y6 M5.0lr0•510 56 w �11�����i(T���n�1�A�n�7 �� X11 .e N .1224.012,LOT 00464e..4r.,I .0.12 20.1011405 m ®I�A49�'7f WMIIII 1�71�fI�ET�1��1�'".�1lfLl r,> W. ar! ,a«! 12071 12557 11511, nn an ni .22.1259dr,210..512 a..n! 44.11 910% 1.621 241% a.n4 525% 0 5m 2451 22n 7m un CMS 1M% 311% 1241 em% "IN 119% 1.ee 111 114. 6 SIN,.. d..w 17a» .,...w...».Y4...4444 ° 11..ga,wrrw4d.•„I 1 r.w.Yw - n 141462.rr Ee4uam o d1,Cw., m1,7225 nr 23.iff�J M5.T p7,f4�,r Mair..l.... 1. •, ,u n e-,. 12..151... ^544..29251 2x01014..2551�[.a 1511654 ...:0.+0 Jw.an MrJw h 23,223331-92 rrr.m•1.5254 0410,aarten$,$)1.3na::,.1,r.ax,.:a,arr..t,J ry 51.0.11.Tin:.d..ea. OCS Student ProJectlonsttt Middle Sawn Year - 2 e - .141, 1. 12914 n 201025 x.25 17 2577.15 ame.w 201190 222011 2.142 2019. .a x6013 o qs :5515555 x016127 roo oe z5e« am m 151 ,x M-s5 1«n 220 :1,;p 3Po1 -��•� , ," ,. 1715 - 1521 1229 , 1571 •,171 w 90 75 22 54 1< 2.« 02 1000440 01120n.0 Na49117154 Qv...0110o1 Las 'S. 1PoJ'. . .. 2571 3 6 r 1,25 5125 40 112512 151. :au 2517 aw 231 1.214 x225• 2,314 1216 9214 law 5114 xaw r m x52. 5nue.2a rr.,,l54 gn.Nna.rl ion 1,46 7251 101 212 x, 2x0 •40 1 1 Nn Me wu wan Hn 11271 11$1) 2Hn OW. 74,51 HY 51251 2451: .1217 rtael ♦22.n..r.r.m....23121.rai I 16 .711 0461 Jan o1 a .tea 49.6 1141 1.x1 11n 1.12,1 :an van 6451 .w1 4151 1 111 .,n 10% 491%1 n 24 147217:12,""2"2:ejr41:11,291 te 11499241 12 2212 I. 951.4422212512/..00x1002.02.017101.4.02.420 r:f,arr'SUn25,e,lr.nr 4400 \ 1'724,.so.n-.■1112 09900 u 0121+:10124129134,w yl .611,0 Ul.13 101501250 tl .1512 l-.ravo.aL.v.xN•aa,:O 4141,: '�0.4� yr 0167121,l.. a..lal:,4rug.0...i4 1 n OCS Student ProJedlona 1st r"a" ...,1.... ,.•.0 24:'11 1 •Y• 19 251.11 2 25.17 $1715 1915.25 3'71112 1,145 '.7131 !l Bit 2 II e.0, a x15 :� p w 2.lee taw •1,755 21,rH 2 1 14140 1., >)Y H CD IIIIIIIIMIIIIIIISINIIINIFTIIIIIIIIWITIIIIIIIIIIIII!llIlMrldIMIIIFITlidlllFrTIMIIIIIrrfllMrltl 15 ••471 1 415 4. 4 I, •05 419 °CI 2 41 .0 3..../ E1� ��� ��� e5 'r, n 1 fa., m.. 1 2574 - 2.3 ., r- $•••1 r.... -., ... ,.1444 .; ,..R. _. H ..•,�. .:-•:_4444, .- wn6Yl.w Om.Pao 01 101 4141 326 11011 3204 1144 4151 101 a2.6 Ian ,711 4 1516 .501 2111 ,111 141 °0 251 05151 .....r- J 72.2:,,i_.�.ww__---1--40' aq20 a m,.saint rrnatsat an.i AK 015,a.2aw.4 151 0.,. �° `""- ''n:.-12:12-`) \ 1y 9.7 ov,crr•rmnv•e a �.«550 041.1 91:1151.712:76.:z�-.riT'� 1 -0 a 0,6e,vn •War awdrr.Mwln 3400,ua C•:• .q 5..45,15 4. 715 2r 51,x2 a l2..E.en1,..a 027,211,0,2,5 a,..,eww..2r.1..tlwua..9.aMnarsn0•p,w aeon 29.91151126110$11 31511....01 n.2.n,...In$aa 223313.14 154:.4•aba n W 01 O t 5 • IN- Cn CHCCS Student Projections M telfnw9ms„a Ebmn,la,y I ro6oa+ -ma ..a ,..]s :rot9n. +e eye •,e.n „.i. "� .•• I ., tititttQl�� �� ~ MIEN =� _____MiliMiTIMIIMMERMIIMMEMMINMENNOWNIZENNOMMINEENIal PlaggillENIMIFIllinEgailllinillii WIENIMITEINItu ®®111111lMMIII91II ® MINMIM ma,ae.en.nam6l an..us SO..ala,■ntarmen6.lInVId Ian,. 116 ,r,w....Nww Y:lrm aawrwe•,.snantal n.1 'aae ttar� a.n . ..1u: asW.rw l.. ...moor prostates JD.,_..laa�6.nYae,. ln�1:Ca •u anDen Mt Oka x6.sna Woo m,nemukin,evs MO OIV„won 012'1 Ind amaitmmerfb fm se.10 I],Dariens•A]..']f ' - ..ass saes.Dekles.J•1ll to suaa sem1O RIWw6n::N,a6'ra..ONanur.n.01f ESea Ca.a.ses OCnw,RE.,.D6'a:tm,ale:n.0,010,'009 sm•A soot...ma 0 0amml a esec,,L nrvoll a.3Wta sus VI 171 at anaWeYSasttte•14,11.4 mann CHCCS Student Projections.: Middle l n6�gf0� �� fi1F,'S7��3'RIiC47A!f 2013,. I„6 e,e.,e .6,e., 6,t.e mn, ,u-06 •, , ,, ,6t SSA �i �� MBISSIMINIESINIIIIIIIMMINICEIMMICISMI mom rmi M paean.al 1n 6a6.nln.In.6..m IMIN NIIIIIIM® wm •M an*.orw lwa011007.tos -MIIIFNMNMRIIBEIIPRIIIBIFIMNMTIRIIIIIIFIMIINMIPRIIFIWRIIR 6a a i]e ]e ]p er1 L i_s •wm •Anavn.l.e v.,un,••u1%tne l0 aillrCJjlnllrrflUjjjj IIrZWmlINIIrrflIMIEMIlII.rmj..lrrIjffllMINIM jjjMIN,>flj 11. anna .nnrn..a,,.rn aA1 apes 0Is% .,AS 0 s 9 701 e9% 7.9 0 71% 7 n2nl 1six lint 1i1 1A1 101% ):e% 7w% 1AO% 0 179 1161 1Ie14q anla v.Mtn liana a■reaatat fawn.Pln,. f,0,sun 1 6Y. Flak C O 66 ONUNCH.MSONntls 11. 10191.101 SID. ,1y a.m.mina r anin Mu xuaa,a V nat.r1. wan w2 n•.a. ou9w.a.o..r .,. n au u... °nn ,v»au tulnrl, ,aye o 1]..0 meow•es nom my CHCCS Student ProJections 11t MI ®® o g Ioxrrr reeron esza ... 0 1.•Iss.•S rodents n�� ��� = Of ramnfla a:41 Jai, 21n1 1 He 1 MI 2.111a M•,M....,.. .. 6. w196 Ye 11 S.a,.0 ea wirrtumesrmaremmonmmilarnmorrmirrnmentimeremerimernirerrermamramriimernmernimmomm (--) Inane a d 9.. ler 1101[.0 ® ' ®®i91r ffI '!? .. ..i. . �"MIMW®1�1IM.,;r®® N m6ruc,rr.An msn.lanasxa.unv.crros,cnrrnNOW Mkt newt. mlys,r•■.m w:eea wm eanvvnN,tt:sA�.rl oaOrJ ttw \ ,v ..q-,nsa pn..y mu sM °'MU1gan late c6a c,o Doe..omen..1s...../..... a 7.166 n•cor..N 11]DM...se watts,.a•vaz.17.1-1 l.acsi N4a Imo' •ec i..ey En s9msan Y.aY]6'lu Ca(CS•„Ww x\. f., r ty.a°;... mop I w al C.") rb .521 .5 OCS Student Prolccdons''''' 111 N1111 EIwr.M3ry `w � 9.ImM Y.v ] 004.47 .N }1,4 2, • .2 HI].r1 201342. Huts *me 002412 Htl l• moon HM0• ]0H.]f H]1.M O..-, ]21).00 1 Admal ..,i0 422 13 MIN 36.21 n.n 2�an:2 ].lug meat 1 2211 0 Htt-3.»0. ] 019.51115 • l� .� � 1111111=1111111 IIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIMMIIIIIMMIIIIIIWMINIIIVIVIIIIMIN 13.1 GrUIVI moo it•!7i1Rl f�4A7�P*J�1I[IIlE11'7NWR1i7'ill7'7 •-loco w1M•smplM10rlMMwn. -�����n��l�����1���'=W7� �' '�w,]IHN 1...1 .1152521 r 0 1.1a Im.t 1.g, 11 ������MINIMIN��ININNIMINEIN� tMV...a ev^nrb1u21 521. ,•a Owr Lnr,05,LO, �_�1�®'_�lame1l11�I®_�_�wIn�®�_I�e��-��me�'.® ��� •wn.2.1401.5.2 5151 -�ill� i'�1�11�1I�1Y��leII�I'I.I�® I. �1� =wan eon ®®®®®®�® L v..rm.w aw21v^q.e.wwr-I Mnsesveenovio.o0etwt am0s Anon nommen..am OStnuo n^Nrns.waoa N 9roMmelamrnu11.1«ems Ile 4.M.,15.20,3 MI 21.524.505 n Dm.in 1 e4.S01ms ..........22.15...............4 b MwiU:27174..2S 1.11-41 O,e....4.Inn...Maer.ru...........er. EtwLeuwr...,CUCCS. CI..m 0gr.I.K5 15.152.5.5 onn 22.i20w,10:].00 pr-.OMw.mw.vY+1-...15.25n110e 11072 WM.an..Ix AIS2022 1.42.7.14.1.5.1.044CUC4$elmnM42212.143.4.s Hes am 112 of wooed M Irn...2.22011.5. OCS Student Prgectlons111 miaow sa =MI= �� �M����i=�� �1Sii• �Sfi�3s�eT71• �iS'� i'[S! �1� �in � nn �nn�A .712.t13..n1.fLL..16.21...m.e. ����L11��11�@�m1�1�MMIN1 1�1�II1■11�1�O1�1�N!/1�1�11n�i1�n FL}�' ����.1 1�� ��m�msaI� ��MINMITl���mMFaIsITTI Num..54.7.4..121 01411.1 a Oev,n wr,Keg L03 �I���®®��®-®_��IM_M®��}2 ��®®®�� �',I1■Ie�ln ��n■eO�xlnilm�7t1111sesM1111111 111�lmslmMSawsx•Iif IIIINTn1�1minAS�Fa1IC7Em %m0w el euNm Mt.21 na nn I.e om 1111.11,1.03 ��11����n 1 }1l��I1l1��Il1MMII�l� ����!®�®�.�MI{1���.�1 5151121.+,57.4...^.5. 107 . .1171, 1,1... III ON Ifn.7 In .. 72, 754.1 2151, 24 U. 21 av, 11.2. 22, m. Min006mm�0 045w11 Ra.151 2552 e0t4 ]Its .1.119 .glee a•fY ima 04.4 nett .2252 5515®���®®�®�� �I,I..newt to me en»mt.1.a me Naene.r15,Intl eon 0mmrowm2220mpee 7 ev4ne sam0s....Nexr Feel 4.0r..py sAlYOrcearvnniULeM0UrvNe .7727- Un210........pa rew...1.5m5....2 0tiswr 6.5.1.47 uemN'b CUC. 21.12.11.1.4 Ur..w1..7 uu..-7lgb1.-527In010x7,1VIY11.1.Y0...UV 10 w41 ID14ts Nwn0 Ny.5 I...2. N�407* OCS Student Prciectlons 0, pi° MO U. Iwa&G2 2ag102 �N2.g2 eN]NOW>a2 :,..2�1x,N 2 ..H, ..n 2-152%A1{I..n IHl 2• 21,. 74 201415 HIS-14 2014.2 NOM ]wed• m,-H 1720.01 2071.22 H22.H 2025x+ 201 St 20,2 244. 2.. rr..�U - fi 214. I U A..... uns dog m24.0,wl wact051•n^Nn..eu.mlw■M01 5151 1-1 eH .0 I NJ E 11 Ls» 211 U,' LN nV2561 255, 1020 fiLt Ni I.CH 1.0 t1 1njr 1■I Po ■...... ,..mnn}n.e o......,tow.L0f 515,4. 5111 ] U )2155 01 MIMI „ 1.» fs 50. 211 -- n...0 0w4 11.4::211044 LOS u®!®lI1IlI�f11111111111nINNImlNIIMIAMlRMI1lml r1!®■{'VI 12152 Ir2L on. nun f.1 ,n s• . now It•w 1121 e.P 11 Mnw0 Swe0d•wnR05nll�,wry.1:...w,crs 74752.21.5, I 1 4020 eln 523. 1101, 320. MO. RHS 131 t, 0271 2.71% 14Dh 252. ♦ 4.5 x11 2014 252]11 2.11 252124 11n 2187. 00,2 %'s aNU11svrenp»i0 m0wu,.cmris•.Fnrxr.p.nap5Lwl05xrvlx I.�wn.wun^.n.nrw.mw..,, I �vv trsw.u:ve:s cw Onnl l W 5.-.521 0..swr.npo.,Wic..11.O.e:urs. 1w•7apw.5w 11.52....r.....u.a-.sr.. � '10s vp,..0...w.bm.-UUw m•m.0..noonlonsbonnn.t.14.043 21p0H245r5u44 e.pro revs rn•enwmenvtr252,ro 211 hew.EpmOap,m MpinaT lnfUC:K Mwp r0.n de■.41x0 mp...termer...fir Senn?nnol 5t,o2:man.5enoca.MM..,b Sexes,5,51mn00:3324 Iles 115mb.510 111.5212 52541MMr.1.2,de.nxwe4.2,115 Orly 1020121tl tt970x12x21 v....in Inv 271.114Ye4 W 01 N S O. V. s N CHCCS Student Projections 111141 m1ccO1n10014 11011311133 �+ 100x133 A.. 100140 200253 700944 33101 100641 200101 2007. 300000 3043 310.11 101115 4011-13 3013,14 10.11 333 100:1 1011.12 2010.10 202120 103.21 r 201130 20353 2.244 •... 1.a/ a07n ,551 _3s,: 22!' 12_ ...x, +»_ sr.L 1.12 k1•f 5m1 sic 00u ® ����=�® � ������ 113 .:::111111111 irAIMIIIIIIII 2222 „ 2222... ,., ,. ®®�nm®®®r���®®ten Amon 11131.0m.3 RIO Pl - 0213 1.13. 2303 am. ].02'AL 2013 .121+ 3.4 1173 1..s, IA. 1270. 1IAA 1.03 1133 10,3 1.3x5 . «r �A1.1p,..3Fl..ao,.al..n. ,(�...t. .. x.a...a..21n....2.113...«.1. /3/33..3/...4 . _ls" `�,13 u'i13I.cW1MOJU 3'7'11:1017=1W1M 1''',=aM11[ZA vd q:0(Ypna p0ac4or:.•J 41,332x.y,',Zu.rot c 240 un,`T 4c wM,n.r..."Z 3•' •o.133.N.a 12x041.3 31311 a3.933.13131.Sous 3.79 1330.3•312 Wau ml o•33134.271.vs�mc3..2013'31.32V t.313.333...316710..1.133333331..:1.sr¢•uc.3.13.20113.113.31 333313 cp..3.1.230.3122.123O3.33 ma 121.33.4.cast3.132.03 30 CHCCS Student Projections 1'1 3e13. 1110301 100.2 10102 303. MAP 3.00 20011. 1.300 NM. 3203 3311 3113 31112 2000 203 NIS. 3133 3110 31312 3080 3341 2021+13 30332 33231 IIIITMIIIIIIIIIMVNIIIIIIIIIFIRIIIMIIIIIIRPIVIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIINSIIIIMIUMIII ':,-.7, "':',,,, 1111:1=1111111=11111116113111111101IIMINESIBINFZUFSEEIMMEN11111=1111110=1 01.•• ==nnimarermirranorcrimonmerminnizramirri M..00. .02.23:. n...O A20M 3 on.n«3x0.nu1. J®J��f�111��1�7��I�n�1I�e�!��=')����Sa���'�7 Ca.ulr 10031•24.11.m.• 213 1.0���J���©,fl_2l_;��� �®® 5.4 ,,, �� 13313.0 0.3. e.�...2_,«1.2..11 3a� �1, in 3..; „. .SO S 312.�33.3 e23./re 0.+ n. 1013.09 Annex S../03.0:x.Sol .37 007. 033 10 O. ete.. 17Aa 2 734 0113 0ATI 132 1 903 320.3 7233 PHI. 0 1. 1.4 2133 2223 933 7I. ,33 1 203 1170.0.,..n 0...t,.4.:_t..n au.ne.O Rnnn en3 7:107 nl'xr1 t. btu 0s,3337 333333 3311 s,1.a1mw7.33..33.07 A37.311.7.3311.311/au036.333.,3m:on A3 90 1.31 02 00tn,3_3:3.0 13031.3 3 °�137 37 3/113.103. 713./30.r WMO.00.0.. ..CI..Ina(tiS(hp.pr...070 n 30.x3 33733.0x0003411'lm:a■[t.01.3133/09.01132 .30163x21201312 33 r.ru0.mon tom.a xA..114191„u..3.1 2 CHCCS Student Projections" MO S..17.1 100001 MI. 30202 M. 39446 2.393 _2O4. 314141 206. 3303 300t 700+2 3337 317Ja 333 •130 30 0.11 167 3 310 31000 2 331 .1 2 1202 371.. e7.73 o 10 2413 ... 133 2a, 32 IS 2340 1.. 2 310 2m. 3A4,. ,4 1221. p. N 111111=1.1111.EI7rr1SENSI R11Y1 IMMISII MIN !IIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIM1.1 C7 g �� = ��� 0 Imo®®Iii ®�6�M02111 DIME= ■ ._ ^ItTT1I•1WriINN•r717 tBIIIIIIIIF3!:1IIIIIIIW7111111T1F1 7�F'""9 �.• a' Ann.... 4r xe n ��111�7��l�!I��RIIAI∎ri mme11�t7 �1�11me7�7�f7�+'1�'J x'1!1 .a+... I IITEIMMIS11111111 L11 7 f 7LIIIIPR7MIIINSITHINIErSi l∎Itil SllINIMtdl }S1111111Ml111111•71111 711MM ITIMIM1 1111111Tf:1 ,-.. IM•Il1111MIIMI!1lAAIIIIIINIRAl1IfRAIIIIIM11IIMESM9∎df11S9IIIIIIIIIrt1011Nlrf1IIMIIIrT1IIMIIIWI■rllllifl fll II 1-1 u. IdafMITff11=7747 ll t El=GS•11117!e•1110211MINIL7IIIMPs1MErAMTIIMI.MWIIIIIIE;ifNIIIIMIIE'II!PIIIIMITI!MMIT'S11111111711111Mel 1-1 1.ynwer tlnalm®®∎miner ymor!AlimmorriammAH∎OmmsA6I∎ISmori Iminziora llatll®mmeJI■Nownwolei n _2222..1.•2222 .• ®MIERIMIS II INitSIMMENIMMMEM1INHMMIMMIS ; • 620 ∎Noun TS'rmmins!mmurrhnimi immtin29elw®mown T!rmwe£IiTlllmarn®nmennumnimarrimorflairemormorreiiDFiierrn 1 nk...n03.733s:.23.13.10 33.00.rvv OSers. \\ \ .•1S 101.6a 01.3.30 0:120340.40..110.3 Arbors,/1LU+30x0 C.a.11.1.33.C1KC$0.612 X...419000.to. 11 'n T.T or Mon •00 r0033At'trer IN..of ryyrtl U.cncts.20Mi 3.102 t10rxn..:Ms, ream 3NTOn•/Ins 43501,00..2.3,2..23.....2223 el A:1.or no./sec...0200•73.:ea3309-3..N0.010.03A131133.333300.313 sew.311333. ,73.'2.22 J Mt1.23s,,31.23:190..31.3.13.eNa 1.3.7.3 3 3 2 ro.10 so.01.10x1 s.at 47303 e1..73.,dxt /.3 0 0 7 o 0 3 0 9•9 1.-kr7372 uu W 01 W Section H A Student Membership Growth Rate 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) each year and referred to the BOCC for annual report certification. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition — The annual percentage growth rate calculated from the projections resulting from the average of the five models represented by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level for each school district. This does not represent the year -by- year growth rate that may be positive or negative, but rather the average of the annual anticipated growth rates over the next ten (10) years. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment ILD.2 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis of Existing Conditions The membership figures and percentage The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued growth on the attachments show continued growth at each school level within the growth at each school level within the system. Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next ten years: r A 54 system. Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next ten years: Year Projection Made: 2009- 2010 2010- 2011 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013- 2014 Year Projection Made: 2009- 2010 2010- 2011 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013 - 2014 Elementary 1.72% 1.44% 1.59% 1.18% 1.44% Elementary 1.34% 1.57% 1.6% 1.31% 1.30% Middle 1.93% 1.67% 1.94% 1.59% 1.58% Middle 1.53% 1.84% 2.01% 1.64% 1.42% High 1.8% 1.57% 1.73% 1.60% 1.27% High 1.38% 1.59% 1.61% 1.43% 1.35% S. Recommendation - Use statistics as noted. Recommendation - Use statistics as noted 38 2012 -2013 0' Orange County Student Projections Flementary School lcar 2012 -2013 (aclnal 2013 -2M4 201.1 -2015 2115 -11116 201(.21117 2017 -2018 2111 821119 2019 -2020 2020 -2021 2021 -2022 2022 -23 -Membership 3,403 3,433 3,479 3,574 3,622 3,654 3,698 3,742 3,786 3,830 3,875 Average "aIncrease 1 777 088°/ 1 135°/ 272% 134% 1 0.88% 1,21% 1 1,19°/ 1.18% 1 1.17% 1.16°/ Middle 2012 -2013 201121114 2014 -2015 2015 -2016 2111(.21117 21117 -2018 201 8-21119 2019 -2021 2120 -2121 2021 -21122 21122 -23 School Year (actual) School Vear acluab ,Mcmbershl 1, 684 1,733 1, 772 1 777 1,785 1,824 1,903 1,930 1,939 1,959 1,979 Average ° o lncressc . 2.92% 222% 1 030% 048% 1 2.18% 432% 1 1 41 % 0,47% 1 1 04% 1.02% 14inh Srhnnl Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections Flamentary 21112 -21113 2111121114 21114.21115 2115.21116 2111(.21117 2017 -2018 21118 -2019 11119. 2020 2021621121 2021 -21122 21122 -23 School Vear acluab {c1116crshi 2,315 2,355 2,366 2,359 2,429 1 2.472 2,460 2,520 2,555 2,591 2.667 \verae2 ° o Increasa 1 71 % 0480/. -0 29% 1 2 97% 1 177% -0 51% 2 45% 1 39% 1.41% 2.93% Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections Flamentary Middle 21112 -21113 211112111) 2014 -2015 21116 -21116 2111(.21117 2017 -21118 21118- 21119 21119 - 2020 211211 -2021 2021 -2022 21122 -23 School Year (act unb -Membership 5,543 5,612 5,676 5,764 5,83 5,875 5,945 6,014 1 G OB4 6,160 6,236 Avemge °. Increase 1 25% 1 15% 1 55% 1.26% 0.65% 1 18% 1 17% 1 1.16% 1 24% 1.23% Middle Hinh School 2112 -2013 20112014 2014 -2015 2015 -2016 2016-2(117 2017 -2018 2018 -2019 2019 -2020 2020 -2021 2021 -2022 2022 -23 School 1'c:tr laduab membership 2,785 2.862 2,934 2,972 3,004 3,072 3 133 3.179 3,188 3 225 3.261 Averatw'" Incmise 2.75% 2.53% 130% 107% 2,26% 200% 1 1,46% 0.28% 1 1.15% 114% Hinh School O � >v N O v CD d W Cii 2012 -2013 20112014 2014 -2015 2015 -2016 201(.2017 2017 -21118 2018 -2019 21119 -2120 2020 -2021 2021 -2022 2022.23 School Year actual) Mmbership 3,796 3.828 3 8G6 3 910 4,016 4,108 4,167 4,235 4,324 4,374 4,447 Avcrnga °,o Increase 1 0.84% 0 98 °,'0 1.15 °10 2 72% 2 28% 1 1.43% 1 1.63% 1 2 09% 1 17% 1 67% O � >v N O v CD d W Cii �K rr 2013 -2014 0 Orange County Student Projections Elementary School Year 2013 -21114 20142015 2015 -2014 1 2014-2017 1 2017 -1018 1 2018 -2019 2019 -2020 1 2020 -2021 1 2021 -2022 1 2022 -23 1 201-1-24 School Year (actual Mcmbe slu 3,433 3 472 3.555 3,597 3 627 3 668 3,716 3,764 3 812 3,861 3,906 Accra c % lncrcasc 1 1.14% 2 39% 1 18% 0.84% 1.13% 1 30% 1 29% 1.28% 1.28% 1.17% Middle Hinh School School Year 2013-2014 20142015 2015 -2014 2014 -2017 2017 -1018 2018 -2019 2019.2020 2020 -2021 2021 -2022 2022-23 2023 -24 School Year (actuaq Membership 1,747 1,789 1805 1824 1,862 1,933 1951 1953 1967 1,91, 2,010 Averive ° o Increase 1 2 38% 0 94% 1 03% 2.07% 3 85% 0.90 °,'0 0 12% 0.71 % 1 04% 1 12% Hinh School School Year 2013 -2014 20142015 2015 -2014 21114-21117 2017 -2018 2018 -2019 2019 -2020 2020 -2021 2021 -2022 2022 -23 2023 -24 actual Membership 2,421 2,406 2,411 2,468 2,533 2,534 2,600 2,642 2,678 2,742 2,767 Average % Increase 1 -0 61% 0.18% 2.40% 2 63% 0 03% 2.59% 1.62% 1 39% 2 36% 0 93% Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections Elementary School Year 2013.21114 21114-2015 21115,2014 2014-2017 2017 -2018 2018 -2019 1 2019 -21120 2020 -2021 21121 -2022 1 21122.23 21123 -24 actual lviembershi . 1 5,554 5 635 5,748 5,845 5,927 6,021 6,090 6 166 6,241 6,323 6,405 Average °,-o Increase 1 1 47% 2.00% 1.69% 1 1 41% 1.57% 1.15% 1.24% 1 23% 1 31 % 1 1.30% Middle School Year 21113-21114 20142015 2015 -2014 2014-2017 2017.2018 2018 -2019 2019.2020 2020 -2021 2021 -2022 2022.23 2023 -24 actual Membership 2,858 2,925 2,947 2,962 2,999 3,063 3,134 3,190 3,257 3,299 3,342 Avery ge %Increase 1 235% 076% 0.50% 124% 213% 232% 1.78% 2 11 % 130% 130% Hiah School School Year 21113-21114 211142015 21115 -2014 2014 -21117 21117 -21118 2018 -2019 2019 - 20211 21121621121 2021 -2022 1 21122 -23 21123 -24 actual Membership 3,764 1 3,805 1 3,825 3,893 3,982 1 4,011 4 050 4,086 4,112 4,199 4,268 Average %Increase 1 1 1.08% 1 0 54% 1 78% 2 27% 1 0 75% 0 96% 1 0.88% 1 0 65% 1 210% 1 165% o � w w � d N O (11 Section II 1. 2 3 11 E. Student / Housing Generation Rate Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be conducted by Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee ( SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for certification. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. Definition — A projected number of students that are generated from four different types of housing, "single - family detached ", "single- family attached ", "multifamily ", and "manufactured homes ", as defined in Appendix C to the 2007 TischlerBise School Impact Fee Report. Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District See Attachment ILE.1 Analysis of Existing Conditions Standard for: Orange County School District See Attachment ILE.1 On October 6, 2009, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the updated Student Generation Rates as recommended by the SAPFOTAC. The newly adopted Student Generation Rates became effective the 2010 -11 school year with the November 15, 2010 CAPS system update. The current standards are shown in Attachment ILE.1. Both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools have recognized a larger increase in students generated from developments in both districts, particularly the multi - family housing. The SAPFOTAC discussed the increased number of students generated in both districts and proposed multi - family projects that may continue to have an effect on student membership numbers. While this may be a short term trend caused by the current economic climate or other factors, the SAPFOTAC recommends further evaluation of the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts different types of housing may have on student membership rates. Orange County Planning staff has contacted the consultant used to do this type of work in the past to obtain a cost estimate. It is expected that a new study to update only student generation rates would cost 41 57 Section II between $12,000 to $20,000 with the lower end of the range being more probable, given knowledge of the types of data Orange County has ready access to. Also, it should be noted that students are generated from new housing as well as from existing housing where new families have moved in. The CAPS system estimates new development impacts and associated student generation, but it is important to understand that student increases are a composite of both of these factors. This effect can be dramatic and can vary greatly between areas and districts where either new housing is dominant or new families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock. 5. Recommendation —No Change The SAPFOTAC does not recommend a change at this time. However, the SAPFOTAC continues to recommend further evaluation of the Student Generation Rates to determine whether a change is warranted. The last impact fee level study (which includes the calculation of student generation rates) was conducted in 2007 so it may be time to initiate another study to ensure up -to -date data is used for both SAPFO purposes and impact fee purposes. Alternatively, a study to analyze only student generation rates, separate from any study regarding school impact fees, can be completed. The cost for such a study is estimated at between $12,000 to $20,000. 42 TischlerBise Student Generation Rates - 2007 Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools Elementary Middle High All Grades Single - Family Detached 0.263 0.143 0.197 0.603 Single - Family Attached 0.158 0.077 0.115 0.350 Multifamily 0.038 0.015 0.017 0.070 Manufactured Homes 0.141 0.066 0.061 0.268 All Housing Types 0.149 0.078 0.105 0.332 Orange County Schools Elementary Middle High All Grades 0.168 0.090 0.126 0.384 Single - Family Detached Single - Family Attached / Multifamily 0.066 0.022 0.034 0.122 Manufactured Homes 0.096 0.041 0.049 0,186 All Housing Types 0.145 0.074 0.102 0.321 wSource: School Impact Fees - Orange County Schools, TischlerBise, December 31, 2007 o' Section III III. FLOWCHART OF SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PROCESS Abstract: The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance process has two distinct components: A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Process 1) Timeframe: In November of each year, Student Membership and Building Capacity is transmitted from the school districts to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for consideration and approval and used in the following years CIP (e.g. November 15, 2013 membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June 2014). Process Framework 1. SAPFOTAC projects future student membership from historical data, current membership and hypothetical growth rates from established methodologies. 2. School Districts and BOCC compare projections to existing capacity and proposed Capital Investment Plan. 3. SAPFOTAC forwards data and projections to all Schools APFO partners. 4. School Districts develop Capital Investment Plan Needs Assessment during this process 5. The Capital Investment Plan work sessions and Public Hearings are conducted by the BOCC in the spring of each year. 6. The adoption of CIP that sets forth monies and timeframe for school construction (future capacity) by BOCC. I M-11 61 Section III School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 1 - Capital Investment Planning (CIP) Projection Method (Historical Membership' plus Hypothetical Growth Rate T CIP Approval (Proposed New Construction i.e. School Capacity Added by number seats & yeai Actual Adjustments (Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year Membership Projection) CAPS System2 (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) 'Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1) pre- existing /approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2) existing housing stock with new families /children, and (3) newly approved housing development (in the future this component will be known as CAPS approved development) 2The only part of the CAPS System (i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking) that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual membership (November 15 of preceding CIP year) and new school capacity amount (seats) in a specific year pursuant to the CIP. 45 Section III B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Update (Process 2) 62 Timeframe: The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the school districts report actual membership and `pre - certified' capacity, whether it is CIP associated or prior `joint action' agreement. `Joint action' determinations of changes in capacity due to State rules or other non - construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the November 15 capacity and membership reporting date. This update may reflect the Board of County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects capacity and addition of new actual fall membership. The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year — (e.g.: November 15, 2005 to November 14, 2006). New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated, each CAPS projection year is `absorbed' by the actual estimate of a given year. Later year CAPS projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For example, if a 50 -lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 lots may be assigned to "Year 1," 10 lots to "Year 2," 10 lots to "Year 3," 10 lots to "Year 4," and 5 lots to "Year 5." When "Year 1" is updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The students generated in "Years 2, 3, 4, and 5" are held in the CAPS system and added to the appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated. As was discussed in Section II.C, The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not require that CAPS be issued prior to approving development activities. However, residential development within the Orange County portion of Mebane has increased dramatically prior to 2009, but has slowed considerably due to the current economic climate. Currently, there are approximately 1,000 approved undeveloped residential lots in the portion of Mebane that lies within Orange County. Increasing development within this area of the county has the potential to encumber a significant portion of the available capacity within the Orange County School we Section III District. Although the SAPFO system is not formally regulated in Mebane, staff monitors development activity and when students enter the school system their enrollment is calculated and used in future school projection needs. Please note that the two processes (CIP and CAPS) are on separate, but parallel tracks. However, the CIP does create a crossover of capacity information between the two processes. For example, the Schools APFO system for both school districts that will be established / initiated / certified each year in November and is based on prior year created and /or planned CIP capacity and current school year membership. The SAPFOTAC report including new current year membership and projections are to be used for upcoming CIP development as noted in Process 1. CIP Process 1 (for CIP 2014 - 2024) November 2013 — June 2014 (using 2014 SAPFOTAC Report) Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2014— 2015) November 2013 - November 2014 47 63 0 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation 2014 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2013 through November 14, 2014. The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC /School District joint action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2013. This information is received within 5 days of November 15 and posted within the next 15 days. This CAPS system recalibration is retroactive to November 15, 2013 . CAPS Allocation System 1. Certified Capacity 2 LOS Capacity 3. Actual Membership 4. Year Start Available Capacity 5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity (includes available capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by year) 6. CAPS approved development a. Total units b. Single Family c. Other Housings CAPS System AC2 =SC2 - (ADM2 +ND 12 +ND22 +... ) AC >_0 - Issue CAPS ACO - Defer CAPS to later date 'Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate. Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1. This estimate only captures new development impact, which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate. 2 A - Available Capacity - Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system. SC - Certified School Level Capacity ADM - Average Daily Membership ND - New Development; ND1 means first approved CAPS approved development 48 Attachment 5 65 PEVISE10212 12014 CHCCS Student Projections 90)14) Elementary School Year 2000-01 2 2002-03 200354 2 200550 23607 2007-00 2 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2010-15 2015-16 2019-17 2017-18 2010-1e 201523 2020-21 2021.22 2022 23 2223 24 Actual 4,444 0014474 4,551 4692 004,695 4079 0 4980 5173 0085.302 5,219 5,296 5464 5543 5554 TiscNerm 5 6. 5,741 5834 5,928 8,021 6 119 6208 5301 6 394 6,408 I 00 Planning fl 5 732 5809 5884 5 959 6 033 6.133 8.233 0362 6 492 10 Year Growth MUM 5.781 5,893 5.978 8 003 6 143 6,205 8,267 6330 6 393 5 Year Growth ®i 9.404 0.001 0 001 5122 0,106 0,245 3,307 3 Year Grown) MEMMF 5,259 5,864 5,943 6,039 6,099 6160 6 222 8229 6 347 Average 5,635. 5,748 5.845 5527 6,021 6,080 9,166 3,241 6,923 6,005 A 1 Change-Inerease Memo.)f A I 5 Prolgoted 01059312201031900094p) 30 71 144 3 104 101- 133_ 129 1339 77 108 79 11 01 113 7 82 93 69 76 _ 78 82 82 Capacity• +\ Y Level or Service(LOS) 4,302 4,302 4,302 /521 4 321 4,921 4 921 45 21 5 244 -3,244 3,444 5 244 5 444 5 0 5,823 5 5,829 5,829 5,829 5 5,823 5,820 5,823 Number - 015 I 2,over(: er1 100%LOS 142 112 � 49 (229 (226 14 2) 59 252 52 125) 52 220 299 (2]51 41941 180 0 60 192 201 337 412 494 370 Capacity-125%Level Of Service(LOS) 4,517 4 4,517_ 5.167 5 167 5 167 5 167 5 167 5 500 5 506 5 50.0 06 5 506 6 120 t 20 6 120 2.120 6,120 6.120 6120 6,120 0,120 6,120 8 120 ' Number of Students.Actual and Projected,Over(Under)105%LOS 143 34 (475) 44724 (280 (187 6 (204) (291 1210) - 37 (562 MII 372 275 193 102 30 45 121 203 2115 Actual%Level of Service /103.3% 104.0% 105.8% 953% 9547, 99.1% 1012% 105.17. 101:% 99.5% 101,0% 104.2%--33...405.7% 95.3% 8.6, 100,356 01.7% 03.3°34 01.8% 103,8.. 07.1% 100.55 109,0. Annual 6ledenl.Growth Hale(3) 0.66% 1.72,. 3.10% 0.06% 397% 207% 3.83% 2,46% -1.57% 1.403 3.17% 1.45% �0,�% 1.47% \2.00% 1.61% 11.41% 11.55/ 11,15% 124,.. •1.23% 1.31% 1.30% Ver niber1S 3002Cerene ap.,Calanaeon;03MS 9392176 vrnnwy 41046925024 shod year 2000-25.1nxmm2rre eme 114panswxh seszeam. lawrce70ry 494pwamhlxro3 with aNiewm1619zea6amPer standard, e91mn9re�'9dnw.kcrobµ a�l[-s clan dm redurea hom 3:xa to ry school when dis1Ad Surpasses Schools AP70 recommended 110010(Service arss r re.mm ry43 cens(men9w fay poor 0001212422 PeHanrc rmur.dmz.d..) m It is 25po1a3110 ncle that this 1e0e1:ls the November 45,2012 dale of memberships outlined In ley the 4000ols Adequate Public 7300400 01 4/13504 II does nal n[lutle CHCCS Students attending the Hospital School. 01 The 511361er Model provde2 for the"Linear Method'of projections for both CHCCS and 003.0ri0inal 7,620 bns used In odor years projection models included 31'Linear Extrapolation Method.for CHCCS. m Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000-01 through 1012-13 and average membership for years 201514 through 2022-23 e Clme sizes fm modes K3=1:23 300060ol years 20001hreugh 2007-00.In accordancew3h 2009 School Collaboration Wmh Group uhecuun,offe2ive the 200 52009 school year with Me opening o5017505 Elementary/M[21,class sizes are 121 as directed by past Stale legislative aclicn. CHCCS Student Projections 11) 50420)0 School Year 2000-01 2001 52 200253 2003-04 liEN 2005-06 2007-08 200503 2009-10 2010-11 ��� 2014-15 2015.16 2016-17 2011-10 2010-10 2019-20 2020-21 2021-2 2022-23 202324 4000 2,326 2,540 2698 26 2022 2097 2,108 2]22 Tlschler'0 2,906 2,954 3 002 3 050 3,098 3 146 3194 3 242 3,290 3,339 G Planning flfl 2,969 3034 3 099 3,165 3,231 3298 3366 3,433 40 Year Grewlh 295] 2988 3013 3097 3,186 3,298 3,327 3360 3,304 5Year er0. 29331 2.903 2.913 2 968 3.040 3,092 3.162 3193 3,225 car rowlh ®® 3,189 3254 3,287 3.310 dY G I � 0950 [918 ,OS1 3131 Ave7e40 �II�t ��.yp� 2 2 2,999 3623 3,194 3.190 3,26] 3,299 3302 AnnoaCe -•10bease Rem-aa- °Actual&Pro ee2d2mb'r , - 11111111111111M11101 11111111111 111=71111111M7 33 37 54 71 58 s 67 43 capacity-1007 Level 015e90102 2,10B 2,040 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,040 2,040 2,240 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,890 2,940 2,944 2,944 2,944 2,944 2944 2,944 2,944 2,904 2,944 Number of sludenls.Actual and Proiene4 over 111nder1100X LOS 216 (300) (2121 1228) (250 (260 (208) (21B) (142) (132) (112) (82) (65) 16 112, 3 16 55 119 190 296 313 355 390 1213.Level of Service 2,256 3,039 3,039 3,229 3,039 3,039 3,036 3,039 3,039 3,035 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3.150 3,150 12,0601 of Students,Actual and Projected,OVer(Under)107%%LOS 70 (499) (431) (427) (470) (467) (447) 1417) (342) (331) (317) (200 (254 1181 225 203 188 151 02 16 39 137 141 192 7,3591-,°Level(753413e 110,3% 89.4% 91.634 92.0. 90.1% 90.6. 91.3. 926. 95.0% 35.439 33.0,6 30.9. 90.1. 100.5.° 1, 99.4% •OD.1% 100,6% 101,9% 104.0% 106.4% 108.3% 110.654 112.1.. 113.5% A9flual Student Growth 9310131 9,20% 260% 3,16% 499,° 047)3 073% 1.1621. 2.86% 2.41% 0.52% 1,14% 1.16% 2,62% 2.35% 178% 0,50% 1,14% 2,13% 2,3239 1.703. 2,11% 1,3D% 1,30% _4brsm Mahon prom.)tu244101a3atr I Indicates when disiricl suroammes 571mI5,20.commended Level of service B'1'Tine Im00000I000042 that Ihfs moec51h2 November 13,04124.40 olmembenhip as 001404 In by the schools Ad2goam Public 940101100 040100000,6 does nor 4001043 CHCCS 2104x05 olmndllu 100 003 51 31 600001 10 The Annual Model p Culate t using the"linear Methodhof projections far 60th CHCCS and encl 05ginal embers02 used in 7201 years proje0'.ion models Idclvtletl the"Unea194 704ae0n Melhotl"(or CHCCS. m AnnuCSStrole 7alculPr Projections 1" for years 2000-01 through 2012-13 antl9vomga membership f4ryean 201314IIr002 2022-23 CHCCS Student Projections 11) High 0000017223 .200051 200152 2 2 350 200456 2 2 607 2307-05 2 20 2 2011-12_ 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2016-16 221 417 2017-ie 2018-13 2013-20 2020-21 2021-22 202233 202334 Actual 2,815 2,963 0023162 003330 3,422 0053,514 003520 9635 0083,630 093,606 0103640 3,714 9,]96 3764 Tizclderm 3,827 3,891 3959 4,017 4000 4144 4,207 4270 4,334 4,397 00 Planning 3,375 3,875 3.075 0.875 3075 3875 3.875 3 275 3.1375 3.078 10 Yeat.rmyh 3,761 3,709 0,067 4,028 4065 4 127 4,186 4218 4,357 0.400 3,772 3.731 3,059 3,960 9.900 9.000 4,017 4.025 4,131 4216 3 Year Grow. 3,768 3,810 4912 6,024 4057 4,105 4,144 4174 4,297 4,392 • 04010,2 3,205 3,825 3,093 3 182 4,011 4 350 4.086 4,112 4,189 4,208 p3nual CNan9e-400502¢(baurexe)in Aolual8 Projected McSnecr06ip) 140 159 460 92 52 0 118 151 (34) 34 74 0; (33) 41 20 08 30 39 36 07 n0 Capacity-130%Level of Service 3,035 3,035 3,035 3,035 3 035 3,035 3,035 3,835 3,835 3,835 3,875 3,875 3,375 3,345 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,075_ 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,375 3,875 Number of Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)100%LOS (220) (72) 127 295 387 079 485 (200) 12051 12291 12351 1161) (79) 1111) (70) 150) 10 107 136 175 211 237 324 393 110,Level of Service 3,339 3,339 3,339 3,339 3,339 3,339 3,339 4,219 4219 ,263 4,263 4,263 4253 ,263 4,263 4,263 4,263 9,263 ,263 4263 4,2123 4,263 4,253 Numbex of sludenls.Actual and Protected,Over Under 110%LOS 524) 13761 on) (1) B3 176 182 (584) is 16131 016231 1549) 1467 1499)458) (437) (369) (281) 051) •(212) (177) 050) (641 Ac'.ual-%Level of Service 92.6% 97.5. 104.2, 199.7% 112.8% 115.8% 116.0% 94.0% 94.7% 99.0% 93,9% 95.87. 93.0% 97.1% ,era r 96.2 9 0,713 100.v/ 1026/ 1035/ 1045/ 1059/ 106. I 110 I°h .•n%I Rude 0-twig Rate 3 5,26. 9 U 5,31 2,76'. 2.69%• 0,77%_ __327% _ A.'10%_ ,6600 - 0.94% 209% 2.21% 4.843. f0B%. 054-_ 1,78% 2,27% 0,75% OAS% 668% 055% 210% 1.65% ideates when disiricl surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Semite 1'x It is important t0 noto that this reflects Me November 15,2012 dale of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequele Public FaOlities Ordinance.It does not include CHCOS students attending the Hosp.1930 L 01 The lischle5 Model provides for the"Linear Method.of projections for both CHCCS and 009-Or1gnel projections:marl In odor years projection models included Or°linear Eair3polalicn MMhod"for CHCCS. 2'Annual growth r21e 00102111ed using actual membership roryears 200001 throuch 2012-13 and avenge membership for years 2013-10 through 202223 The Tischler model uses 14 years of historical dale,but do to space constraints only 10 yeas ofhiolodcal data are included%the above tables. rimmed 400Hm in roe 2007 wlb600admtunalatr 492010-51 310 �yad�3olr9a�•m�mmseaa-x IwN;ulr- 1 66 115,82022m84 OCS Student Projections 115,82022m84 Elementary ,.drool Year 2 2001.02 2 2 2004-05 2005-00 2 2 2009.10 2010.11 2011-12 201243 2 261445 2015-16 2016-17 201]-18 201049 2019-20 2020-21 2021-12 202323 2023-24 Actual 00030]8 2,893 ,41372°901 0038945 3,018 3006 2003072 }3,158 0083,165 093,211 3285 8349 3,403 133,433 Titter. 3193 3,553 3,814 3,674 3,724 3,794 3;854 3,914 3975 4,035 OCPlenninq 3.492 3,559 3,26 806 3766 3,835 3.30E 3,975 4,040 4,085 10 Year th 3,45] 3550 3515 601 3,637 3 67 3,]10 3,748 8]86 s Year OroormvlM1 3,411 3,580 3619 3834 3,663 3,700 3737 3.774 3,812 8650 3 Year Growth 3.948 3.535 - 8556 3.579 3.615 3,651 3.725 3.762 Average 55 a0 722 3'559 353,597 1,620 8668 331166 3,]660 363312 3,61 390S ;4 Annual 40 1 .3 el In ACloalB Pro7ce dMCmbarryip) � ��r 66 0s 1 96 T4 63 _ _ 83_ 92 4 _ 98 9 C acil 100,.Level of Service ,820 3922 __3,912 __ 3,694 3,694 3,694 694 6 4 3.694 3,699 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3694 3694 3.694 3.094 Number or sluaents,Actual and Relented,Over(Under)106%LOS (742) 1927 (919) 17751 (804) (914) (B90 17691 I29 (98 3) 1409 (306) 1291 (2611 1222) 11361 1971 (61) 126) 22 70 11B 163 212 6%Lavoie/Service 4,011 4,011 9,011 4,011 4,011 4,116 4. 8 4,t le 019 3,1179 3,8}9 3,73 3 3,015 3,879 3,079 3,8]9 3,879 Number of Students,Actual and Proecled,Over Under 105%LOS 933 11,1101 1.110 1066 995 1110 10461, 960 3}10 684 631 31]6 446 406 327 Tel 251 210 163 114 61: le 20 Achal-%Level of Service 805% 75.7% 35.9% ]],15 79.07, 76,7% 78,3% 00.5% 85,7% 6669% 889% 904% 92.1% 939% 0.20 95?% 104896 Annual 91u1ent Growth Sale(3) 3.01% 828% 1.52% 2.41% -0.33% 2.20%. 240%, 912% 145% \\30% 1.02% - 0.90% 1.14% 2.39% 1.18% 0,80% 113% 1.30% 1129% 1.28, 1,2B% 1117% m6ten4lwnen eels Isxrwgicru,,,,,,\1 irdicales when dlsiricl surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service oAGmOapappwvm by Bac �agry numbers 8:08 rah u0120%n of 10 Ills lmpadanl 1000(¢that this re1ecls the November 15.2013.1e Of menbershIpas outlined is byte Schools Adequate Public Facnie4 Ordinance, .465 4000.c siera,, 02enbg MClrccs llenvwry es oMSlGove .The Otter Model provides for 0e"Linear Met..of projections for both SHOOS and OCS.Orginalpmjectlons used In prior years 014545 on models Included the 1.12.46lrapolalion Method"for CHCCS. tlo Mmv mrmwl 4w,zadan re:reMMtlass sire) IS Annual growth tale calwla1.using actual membership for years 200801 through 2013-14 and average membership for years 2014-15 trough 1023-24 Cass sizes for grades I(-3=1:23tor subeol years 2000 through 206008.I78[50rd¢.wit 2306 school GMlalwrarnn Work Group direction,effeclivethe 2008.2009s..ye zr with the opening or CHGCS Elern0,4 010,K-3 class sizes.01:21 ae directed by past Slate legislative ac'.ion, OCS Student Projectionsll) Middle School Year 2000-01 2001-02 200243 2003 04 200405 2005.08 2006-07 2007-08 2008.09 2009-10 2010.11 2011-12 2912-13 2013-19 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018 419 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022 423 2023-24 1184 1,527 0021,831 1671 1593 1,590 1,580 1637 1,601 1.665 1,698 1.]04 1.684 1747 Tischer. 1.778 1,898 1.839 1.869 1.900 1 931 1.001 1932 2.723 2 053 OC P 1,711 1.823 1860 1917 1,957 1.980 1,995 2,939 2.023 2.045 108ear Growth 1,795 1.804 1 513 1.853 1,847 1,955 1.940 1,996 1,956 1.956 5 Year Growth 1,799 1,803 1.507 1,848 1.954 1.978 1,975 1.987 2007 2,027 Year GrCvilh _ 1,793 1,789 1,792 1,821 1,909 1,910 1 894 1,900 1919 1,938 Average - _ _ _ _ 1.790 1,805 1.924 1,462 1,051 1, 1,007 3,010 1,633 063 496} Annual Mange-Inuease(0ecreas01 in Mtn,0 Projecled Membership) - 28 _ .104_ 44 (70 _ n 09 67 136 64 33 6 (20 63 40 17, 19 38 72 17 2 14, 22 Capacity-100%Level of service 1,466 1.469 1.460 1,466 1,960 1,966 2,166 2166 2166 2,166 3,196 2,166 2165 2,166 2,166 2,166 2.166 2166 2166 2,166 5106 166 2,166 2,166 umber of Students.AClual and Projected,Over(Unelerl 5130%LOS 38 e1 195 205 127 124 10961 (529 (665 1531) (280) (462, (4139) 1419, 13771 (3611 (3421 (304) 033) (211 (213) 2(199) (170( 11501 107%Level of Service 1.569 1,569 1,569 1,569 1,569 1,569 2.318 2,495 2,318 2,318 2,319 2,318 2,310 2,315 2,310 2318 2318 2008 2,318 2318 2,319 2,318 2.110 2,318 Number of Students,Actual and Pr01ecIed,Over(Under)10]%LOS 1651 (42) 102 24 21 17310 1601 1717 1653 (690 (614) 1614 (s}1 (529) 15121 1494) 1456) 1104) (360 (355) 1351) 1330, (306 Actual-56 Level.Service 102.6. 104.2% 111.3, 114,0,. 108.7„ 109.5,. 720% 73,6% 730% 700% 78.4% 79.7. 77.7. 50.}% 82.69, .63.4% 89.2% 85,9% 89.3% 90.1% 90.2% 90,8% 91.8, 92.6% Annual Student 0805811P.131 1.50% 6,81, 246% 463% -816% -063%. 3144. -2.20% 4.00% 1.90% 0.3614 -1,11% 3.74% 538% 0.9454 143% 247% 3,65% 0,90% 0.12% 0,31, 104, 1.1200 indwtes renal dlsllicl surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service m Ills iMpodant to mole to,Its reflects the November 15,2013 dale of membership as oullinetl in by IM1e Scito/s Ado..Public Sac..Ordinance, w the Itchier Modelprovides for the"Linear Method"of pryeo,02ns for both CHCCS antl OCS.Original project...Er prior years projection models 1041.3 41.8e'Lnear Extepofalion Method"for CHCCS, tat Annual gmWih rate calCUlaled using actual membership rot years 200001 through 201314 and average membership for years 2014-15 Woo.202334 OCS Student Projections 111 w1N,:3epmsnm1 8416.770049335,091 se. High 00540141537 2004.01 2001-52 200243 2003.04 200405 200506 400647 200745 200309 205946 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 .2013.14 201415 201546 2016-17 221748 2018-19 2019.20 202031 2021-22 2022.23 2023.24 Actual 0.972 C IMMITMEM rl 2.124 2,184 2,201 2.202 2,217 2,222 2,283 2315 2,421 • llscnlerm 2,463 2 540 ,591 2,750 2.823 2.845 C Here. .2.434 2,459 2,484 2534 2574 2,518 2652 2605 2,718 2,70 2,404 2,358 2,401 2,471 413 2,529 2,581 2,616 2688 2,698 5.0-Groot 2 t 2.436 2418 2,461 2.523 2999 2.583 2,631 2,678 2.744 2,802 3 Year 0107111 ,294 2.312 2,448 2,548 2,519 2,62] 2,653 2,731 A rv0a 2 2 592 2 726 A ua80501.s-Insmase 4mease n Adria(IL Pre'ec1fd Membef214. �� ._99 170 2415 2.011. 2,40. 2133 5 2,534 '4650 2,64, 2,110 2762 T.T25 ����-Y}ll© � 06 15 65 1 42 3> 63 Capacity-100,.Level 01Sotto 1,510 1,510 8 2,518 2616 7318 2,533 2,533 2,558 3559 2,439 2439 2,439 2,439 7,139 2,439 2439 Tp39 2.939 2939 o 0 0n a 5(001 and 718(00(04.Over(Under)100%10s 16001 (0311 (451) (,541 P. 32( (3151 1) 2(3361 2(275) 2(124) (19 33 Number rm a t A �� ( 1 1 128) 29 94 ifi1 203 303 328 110%Leve10,Service 1,6]0 /1,070 2770 2,770 2770 2,710 2,766 2.780. 2.814 2.819 \2,814 2.810 1.680 2,83 2683 0,098 5603 2.683 633 6113 681 93 03 Number or Svocn4CrAActual and Pra(1Cled,Over(Under1110515S tl0.t,o 115.5%¢ 19420 7(881) 8113) 85461 8(631) 8(105) 0(5}2) 8597( ,1590 (531 (308 ,64( 12}7) (272( (4151 (150) 21199) 2(83) 21411 2,614) 2,s 59 04 A0( I,L 1 1s z6 49% u,. ea. fiz 69% 61°6 �3 sz'n as 9.ye� v .. - 96.7, 96.856 101,2% 103.95 103.9% 06,5, 1003% 109,8% 12.4. 113.5% Annual Student Growth Ralel3)) 8 em gensnm a,m3 seumrsxm2 7,/i _ 4,64% 428% 3.23% B.01% 3.26% 262% 0.76% 1,86% 1.12% 0,23% 5%" 1.40% 558%\ -0.61% 0,18% 2.40% 2.03% 0.01% 42,9, 1,2% ld8% 12.36,, 893% rams.,6.198NtmameSt34 waot7amx� \ .g-547 50800 280902 pe ml sae? I indicates when distal surpasses 9c1w06.135O recommended Leval...Moo \ IpaMUWpMZmr%889.3 Sd,M r4oram-quay aMm 011116 Impotlanto not provides is reflects the November 15.2019 4431 of m0.01-ship as 09¢70¢4 in ryth5SChoola 1820 00lc Pub0o Facirfics ordinance, m The Tischler Model provides foriher"Linear Method"of projections for Loin CHCCS and GCS.Original projections used In pnoryears projection models Included.'Linear axlrayolation Meth.'ru CHCCS, 00 Annual 41,36 rale 00(0510(44 using actual membership for years200001 thmug5 2013-1421d average membership(0r years 2014-15503005 2023-29 The Tischer Medd uses 14 years of historical data.but m l0 spars cons7ainis only 10 years of historical dale are Included in IM1e above tables, •